IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations and reliable evidence to prove demand of dowry and ill-treatment in cases under Section 304-B IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is questioning his conviction for the offence under Section 304-B IPC vide judgment in SC No.596 of 2013 dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was the wife of the appellant. She was married to the appellant in the year 2010. At the time of marriage, one Acre land, Rs.1.50 lakhs cash, seven tulas of gold were given. After marriage, the deceased joined the company of the accused and lived happily for some time. They were blessed with two children, who are girls. Appellant and three other acquitted accused started harassing the deceased for additional dowry. They insisted to register one acre land in the name of the appellant. On 03.02.2013 A-2 informed P.W.1 that the deceased died due to burn injuries on account of cylinder blast. It is further the case of P.W.1 that prior to the incident, the deceased was in a depressed condition and when enquired she informed that the appellant and others used to harass for not getting additional dowry and also giving birth to female children.

3. P.W.1 suspected that his daughter might have been murdered and accordingly filed a complaint stating that the appellant and others poured kerosene on her and lit her fire.

4. On the basis of Ex.P1 complaint filed by P.W.1, crime was registered and investigated by the police. The police filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and 201 of IPC. It was found during investigation that the deceased set fire to herself and the appellant and other family members rescued her by covering with blankets and bet sheets. However, she died due to burn injuries.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that bald allegations of harassment of dowry are made. In the absence of any specific allegations that are leveled against the appellant, conviction cannot be sustained. In fact, the children have to be taken care of by the appellant. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Major Singh and another v. State of Punjab, (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 201, wherein it is held as follows:

“10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established:

(i)the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a ‘normal circumstance’;

(ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

(iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;

(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and

(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.

14. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness or the panchayatdars to prove that there was demand of dowry and that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment. Ordinarily, offences against married woman are being committed within the four corners of a house and normally direct evidence regarding cruelty or harassment on the woman by her husband or relatives of the husband is not available. But when PW 3 has specifically stated that the demand of dowry by the accused was informed to the panchayatdars and that panchayat was taken to Village Badiala, the alleged ill-treatment or cruelty of Karamjit Kaur by her husband or relatives could have been proved by the examination of the panchayatdars. The fact that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry is not proved by the prosecution.”

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in the evidence of P.W1, it is mentioned that the deceased was being harassed for giving birth to female children. Further, the appellant and other accused were also insisting for registering one acre of land in favour of the appellant. It is