Conviction for dowry-related death established by evidence of harassment, leading to presumption under section 113-B of Evidence Act, as death occurs within 10 months of marriage.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL VERMA, J.

1. The appellant has preferred present criminal appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') against the impugned judgment dated 28.4.2014 passed by 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar District Dhar (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 143/2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

The jail sentence has been directed to run concurrently.

2. It is admitted fact that marriage of deceased Shweta was solemnized with appellant on 14.4.2012 and she has been died on3.2.2013.

3. As per prosecution story after the marriage appellant Sunil used to harass her wife deceased Shweta for non fulfillment of demand of dowry, as a result of which either she committed suicide or she was murdered by appellant. On 3.2.2013 Shewata was brought dead at government hospital Badnawar. Her postmortem was conducted by Dr. Sheela Mujalda (PW-6) and Dr. M.M. Upasani (PW-9) and as per their report cause of death of deceased was determinate strangulation and failure of heart and lungs. SDOP Smt. Pratima Patel (PW-7) inspected the spot and prepared spot map and Executive Magistrate also prepared Laash Panchanama. During the investigation Nylon rope and prescription slip were recovered from possession of appellant and death of deceased was found unnatural. Query report has been also obtained from the concerned doctors.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Badnawar, who has committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter the case was transferred to the court of 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge Dhar for trial. The trial Court on the basis of the allegations made in the charge sheet framed charges under Section 4 98-A, 304-B of IPC, in alternative Section 302 ,306 and 201 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellant. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded complete innocence.

5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses but defence did not examine any witness. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned herein above. Hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and facts on record. It is neither legal nor proper nor correct. There is material contradiction and omission in the statement of Bhikarilal Sahu (PW-1), Sarla Sahu (PW-2) and Sunita Sahu (PW-3) regarding the demand of dowry. Dr. M.M. Upasani (PW-9) categorically stated in his cross examination that cause of death of deceased appears to be suicidal , no external injury was found over the person of the deceased. There is no evidence on record which shows that soon before the death of the deceased, she was harassed by her husband for demand of dowry. Prosecution has failed to prove the motive of incident. Prosecution has failed to examine the independent witness. The trial court was wrong in drawing unwarranted inference in not considering the material contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has placed reliance upon judgments in the cases of Pradyumnasahu Vs. State of Odisha , 2022 Legal Eagle (Ori) 382 and order dated 1.2.2023 passed by Madras High court in the matter of Simsonyabez Vs. State passed in Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 430 of 2021. Hence, he prays that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court be set aside and appellant be acquitted from all the charges.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the prayer by sup