The offence of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC requires proof that a woman died under abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage, following proximate harassment or cruelty related to dowry demands, triggering a rebuttable presumption against the husband under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

: JUDGMENT :

This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant–Accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.07.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.367 of 2011 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 25.12.2008, the marriage of accused was performed with the deceased, and that at the time of marriage, her parents presented an amount of Rs.40,000/- net cash, one tula of gold, and other household articles. After marriage, the accused and the deceased lived separately in a rented house at Kolipura locality of Adilabad. They were blessed with one son, and the accused began to torture the deceased for want of an additional dowry of Rs.15,000/-. However, her parents expressed their inability, and the harassment continued. On 13.09.2010, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased over a petty issue and beat her, upon which the deceased, getting vexed with her life, committed suicide by hanging. Thus, the accused is facing charge under Section 304-B of the IPC.

4. After following due procedure, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, and the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad heard the accused on the charge and conducted the trial.

5. During the trial, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 and MOs 1 and 2 were marked on behalf of the prosecution, whereas none were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court found the appellant – accused guilty of the charge under Section 304-B of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred.

7. Heard the submissions of Ms.S.Navya, learned counsel representing Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution could not prove the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that all are interested witnesses who spoke with regard to the harassment. There is no independent witness examined in this case to prove the offence against the accused, and that the accused never harassed the deceased for want of additional dowry. The parents of the deceased do not have such status to give any dowry, and the allegation of giving dowry itself is false. There is no proof of harassment for want of dowry soon before her death, in the absence of which the ingredients under Section 304-B of IPC are not made out. Once the ingredients under 304-B IPC are not made out, no presumption can be drawn under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused under 304-B of IPC. The presumption drawn by the trial Court cannot be sustained, as the foundational facts are not established by the prosecution. She, therefore, prayed to acquit the accused and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and PW5 clinchingly proves the offence against the accused. PW5 is the house owner, who is a third party and is no way related to the deceased, and his evidence itself shows that there was harassment by the accused for want of additional dowry. The trial court has rightly appreciated t