The prosecution failed to prove the essential elements for dowry death under Section 304-B, leading to the acquittal of one accused and conviction of another under Section 498-A for harassment.

JUDGMENT:

The appellants who are A1 to A3 were convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced accordingly. Aggrieved by the said conviction, appeal is filed.

2. Since it is stated by both the counsel and learned Public Prosecutor that A2 died, the appeal stands abated against A2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the wife of A1 hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’ was married to Accused No.1 on 25.02.2011, according to Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, Rs.3 lakhs dowry and 6 Tulas of gold and other household articles were given. They lived happily for one month. However, all the appellants started demanding for additional dowry. The deceased was sent to their parents’ house to meet the demand. The next day, PW.1-father of the deceased and the mother of the deceased went to the house of appellants and convinced the appellants that they will fulfill their demand and sought time to arrange the amount demanded by the appellants. One month thereafter, A1 called PW.1-father stating that the deceased was not taking food. Then the wife of PW.1 went to the house of appellants and informed PW.1 that the deceased was beaten daily for not getting dowry. Then on the next day, PW.1 went to the house of appellants along with PW.3 and PW.4 and convinced them that the amount would be arranged within few days and the deceased would be taken care of. However, the deceased was sent to P.W.1’s house. 15 days thereafter, when the deceased went to pay examination fee at her college, A1 met her and took her to Basara village and stayed for about three days. Thereafter, A1 left the deceased at her parents’ house for Batukamma festival and demanded Rs.2 lakhs, gold and informed that his parents were insisting. Accused No.1 also stayed with them till Diwali. On 27.10.2011 after having dinner, PW.1 heard A1 and the deceased quarrel. He did not pay attention, however, around 2:00 a.m., the deceased was in flames. PW.1 and others extinguished the flames on the deceased. According to PW.1 when he enquired with the deceased, she told that A1 had snatched gold chain and gold necklace from her neck and poured Kerosene on her and set her on fire. Thereafter, the nearby villagers gathered, Ambulance was called and deceased was shifted to Area Hospital, Siddipet, for treatment. The deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for better treatment. The deceased died on 29.10.2011 and on the next day i.e. 30.10.2011, complaint was lodged with the Police at 7:30 A.M.

4. The Police went to the scene of offence, conducted panchanama. Inquest proceedings were also done. After concluding the inquest proceedings, the body was sent for postmortem examination. The Police having investigated the case filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. The Learned Sessions Judge, having examined the witnesses, and considering the evidence on record, found that all the three appellants were guilty and accordingly convicted them.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there is any amount of improvement made in the version of the prosecution witnesses regarding demand of additional dowry. In fact, the deceased was staying in her parents’ house when the incident had taken place and A1 was also present. There is absolutely no allegation that during the stay of more than one month in the house of PW.1, there was any kind of demand that was made by A1. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt has to be extended to A1.

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

8. The incident happened on 27.10.2011 at night. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 29.10.2011 at 1:30 p.m. Thereafter, the complaint was filed on the next day at 7:30 A.M. PW.1 or anyone on behalf of deceased did not complain about the all