To convict under S.304(B) IPC, evidence must confirm cruelty occurred shortly before death.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant assailing the judgment dated 22.12.2000 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Sessions Trial No. 430 of 1999, whereby the Appellant stands convicted under S.498(A) and S.304(B) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of which, to undergo additional R.I. for 6 months under S.498(A) of IPC and also to undergo R.I. for 10 years under S.304(B) of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.4.1999, a Merg Intimation (Exhibit P - 1) was lodged at Police Station Pithoura intimating that the deceased Parmila Bai, wife of the Appellant, is said to have died because of burn injuries and that she was taken to Pithoura Hospital where she was declared dead. Post - mortem report opined that the cause of death was suffocation due to burn and the time elapsed since death was within 12-24 hours. Though the incident was of 15.4.1999, the FIR in this regard was lodged on 28.5.1999, i.e., after about 43 days from the date of incident. In the FIR, total four persons were made accused, i.e., apart from the Appellant who is the husband of the deceased, her father - in - law Sitaram, mother - in - law Hathiyarin Bai and sister - in - law Indroutin Bai i.e. the wife of the elder brother of the Appellant, were made accused and were subjected to trial before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, where the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 430 of 1999.

3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case. There were no witnesses examined in defence. After conclusion of the trial, vide impugned judgment dated 22.12.2000, the Court below found the Appellant to be guilty of having committed the offence under S.498(A) as also under S.304(B) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo the sentence as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. However, while convicting the Appellant for the said offence, the Court below acquitted the other three accused persons, i.e., father - in - law, mother - in - law and sister - in - law of the deceased, from the charges levelled against them.

4. It is this judgment of conviction against the Appellant which is under challenge in the present appeal.

5. Ms. Seema Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that in the entire evidence which have come on record the necessary ingredients for making out an offence under S.304(B) of IPC so also under S.498(A) of IPC is not reflected and therefore the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be interfered with and the Appellant deserves to be acquitted of the said charges. She further submits that in the instant case the marriage between the Appellant and the deceased took place in January, 1998 and the incident is of April, 1999 i.e., barely after 15 months from the date of marriage. That, so far as the offence under S.304(B) as well as under S.498(A) of IPC is concerned, the most necessary ingredients so as to bring home the said two offence is that of cruelty. According to her, the prosecution in the instant case ought to have produced cogent, substantial and effective evidence to show that there was cruelty at the hands of the present Appellant which force the deceased to end her life. It is not in dispute that the deceased died of committing suicide on 15.4.1999. It is also not in dispute that when the incident occurred the deceased was all alone at her home and none of the accused persons were present at the place of incident. The only person who was present in the home or in the place of