Judgment

R. M. SAHAI, J.:- In this appeal, by grant of special leave under Article 136 of Constitution of India, the short question that arises for consideration is if the High Court committed any error of law in exercise of its powers under Section 378 read with Section 386(l)(a) of the Cr. P.C. in allowing the appeal against acquittal and convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment.

2. Law is well settled. While caution is the watchword in appeal against acquittal as the trial Judge has occasion to watch demeanour of witnesses and interference should not be made merely because a different conclusion could have been arrived, the provision does not inhibit any restriction or limitation. Prudence demands restraint on mere probability or possibility but in perversity or misreading interference is imperative other wise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless.

3. Time and place of unnatural death, of Asha Rani, by burning, at her in laws small house with at least six inmates, could not and was not disputed. Both the trial Judge and the High Court held that the prosecution succeeded in proving this. It was further found by them that she did not die of accident nor she committed suicide. Burning by kerosene stove or gas or even firewood may not be unusual due to synthetic wear which has become very common. But when post mortem report indicates, as was in this case, that smell of kerosene was coming from body and even burnt hairs smelt kerosene then it not only belied the statement of her sister-in-law (Nand) that she was burnt while making tea but it ruled out remotest possibility of accident. That is why the findings were not seriously challenged by the appellant.

4. Asha Rani was thus murdered. Why? Sadly for Rs. 5,0001/- or an auto rickshaw which her father of seven daughters could not afford even though he suffered the ignominy of her being beaten in his presence by her in laws at his own house. Bride burning is a shame of out society. Poor never resort to it. Rich do not need it. Obviously because it is basically an economic problem of a class which suffers both from ego and complex. Unfortunately, the high price rise and ever increasing cost of living coupled with enormous growth of consumer goods effacing difference between luxury and essential goods appear to be luring even the new generation of youth, of the best service, to be as much part of the dowry menace as their parents and the resultant evils flowing out of it. How to curb and control this evil? Dowry killing is a crime of its own kind where elimination of daughter-in-law becomes immediate necessity if she or her parents are no more able to satiate the greed and avarice of her husband and their family members, to make the boy available, once again in the marriage market. Eliminate it and much may stand resolved automatically. Social reformist and legal Jurists may evolve a machinery for debarring such a boy from remarriage irrespective of the member of family who committed the crime and in violation penalise the whole family including those who participate in it. That is social ostracism is needed to curtail increasing malady of bride burning.

5. Motive for a murder may or may not be. But in dowry deaths it is inherent. Both the Courts have concurrently held on evidence of parents of deceased, that her in laws were regularly and continuously pestering her for bringing cash or an auto rickshaw and on their failure to satisfy their demand she was subjected to torture and maltreatment. But the. Judge attempted. to dilute it by holding that relations between the deceased and her in laws were strained. And even if there was any motive it could not be of appellant. There is thus little difference between the finding of the two Courts on motive except for immediate cause. But what was overlooked was that in dowry deaths motive is already there and what is required of Courts to examine is as -to who