For a conviction under S.304-B, evidence of recent cruelty or harassment is essential; absence of such evidence leads to acquittal.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 13/11/1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Bilspur in Sessions Trial No. 119/94 whereby the appellant has been convicted under S.304 - B of IPC and has been awarded sentence of RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 250/-. In absence of payment of fine, another RI for 3 months has been awarded.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 11/01/94 the deceased, Rajkumari got burn injury who was wife of this appellant. It was the case of the prosecution that she got such injury while cleaning the house by way of dusting. She was married in the year 1993-1994 itself in the month of Baisak. She went to her matrimonial home in the month of Aasad. It was the case of the prosecution that when she came to her mother's place and the deceased has told her mother that accused was demanding cycle, radio and other goods and she is being tortured by electric current and therefore she do not want to go to her in - laws place. Besides that the deceased was sent to her matrimonial home. Before a day of incident the grand mother and grandfather of the deceased also went to the place of the deceased. The place of incident was dark and one diya / chimney was being lighted. At that time the mother and father of the accused / appellant as also the appellant was not present in the home. It was the case of prosecution that the deceased suffered burn injuries which was informed to the neighbours as also mother, father of the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased was initially after burn injury was taken to the hospital and subsequently she succumbed to the injuries of burn. The Police after investigation has registered a case under S.498 - A and 304 - B of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined 23 witnesses and exhibited various documents. During the course of trial the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Court below after evaluating the evidence and hearing the parties had convicted the accused / appellant as aforesaid, hence this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case does not fall under S.304 - B of IPC inasmuch as no evidence exist that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death. He further submits that except the same bald statement nothing is on record so as to substantiate this offence. Learned counsel further submits that the injury of burn was caused due to the accident, as the chimney had fallen down over the deceased whereby she got burn injury. He refers to the statement of the dying declaration which was recorded by the doctor and submits that the Trial Court has completely misdirected itself to appreciate such dying declaration thereby to hold and has held the dying declaration is not signed by the maker. He further submits that in the case in hand the doctor as also other witnesses in whose presence the dying declaration was recorded, they have unequivocally supported dying declaration which goes to prove happening of the incident. In dying declaration he submits the deceased has categorically said the accident had occurred and has not clamped any charges or whispered anything about the cruelty thereby to inculpate the accused under S.304 - B of IPC.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the learned Court below has correctly appreciated the dying declaration and has not believed it since it is not signed by the deceased. He further submits that the order is well merited and supported the reasoning given by the learned Court below and submits that no ground exist to interfere with t