S.C. Das, J.@mdashThe appellants, named hereinabove, were found guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of
IPC on the charges framed against them by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura, in Sessions Trial Case No. ST 33(ST/B) 2008,
and accordingly sentenced accused appellants, Goutam Nama, Gopal Nama and Gita Nama to suffer imprisonment for life and accused appellant,
Kumud Nama to suffer imprisonment for ten years. The appellants felt aggrieved and, hence this appeal. We have heard learned counsel, Mr. Arijit
Bhowmik for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent.
2. Brief facts:
2.1. This is a case of alleged bride burning within seven years of marriage in the matrimonial home. The allegation, which has been brought on
record, in short, is that marriage between the unfortunate young bride, Suparna Nama was solemnized with convict appellant Goutam Nama on
27th of Magh 1410 BS and, after marriage they lived and cohabited as husband and wife in the matrimonial home at village-Bagantilla under
Baikhora PS of South Tripura District. The parent''s house of Suparna was at Latuatilla, situated under the same PS. In the marriage, as alleged,
the parents of Suparna had given ornaments, furniture, utensils and cash amounting to Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) and for a few months
Suparna was well in the matrimonial home. A show case was supposed to be given in the marriage, which the parents of Suparna could not afford
to give and on that issue Suparna was subjected to torture and harassment in the matrimonial home. Suparna took shelter in her parental home
because of the cruelty exercised on her. A criminal case was instituted alleging exercise of cruelty on her in the matrimonial home by the accused
appellants and also alleging rape on her by accused appellant, Gopal and in that case accused appellant Goutam (husband of Suparna) was
convicted for exercising cruelty on Suparna. Accused, Gautam (husband of Suparna), after his conviction, when was released on bail, visited the
parental home of Suparna in the absence of her parents and started pursuing her to return to the matrimonial home and, ultimately, Suparna agreed.
The parents of Suparna were not agreeable to send her back initially but, at the instance of Suparna they ultimately agreed and a village meeting
was called in presence of Gaon-Pradhan, Member and others, where accused appellant, Goutam and his father were also present and at the
instance of the Panchayat, Suparna was handed over to the accused persons. It was also discussed in the meeting that since the showcase was not
given as per demand in the marriage and in lieu of it, cash Rs. 10,000/- as demanded was also not given, a ''ber jal'' (a big size fishing net) should
be given to the accused persons in lieu of showcase and father of Suparna agreed to give it by the month of ''Jaishtho''. The meeting held in the
month of Falgun and Suparna went back to her matrimonial home. After her return to the matrimonial home for a few days she was well but soon
thereafter the accused persons started torture on her to meet the demand. On the intervening night of 29.04.2007 and 30.04.2007, at about
2.00/2.30 am, Suparna was set to fire after pouring kerosene oil on her and the hut of accused Goutam was burnt and Suparna received hundred
percent burn injuries inside the hut and the hut was also completely gutted. Suparna was taken out of the burning hut by accused Goutam and was
kept by the roadside. The accused persons were busy in extinguishing fire by pouring water and they were not taking care of Suparna to take her
to hospital immediately. She was subsequently taken to Jolaibari Hospital by accused, Goutam and another, Sankar Majumder with a cradle,
wherefrom she was referred to Tripura Sundari District Hospital at Udaipur and on the following morning Suparna died in the hospital.
2.2. Inquest report was prepared over the dead body at Udaipur and postmortem examination was also done in the T.S. District Hospital,
Udaipur by Dr. Debasish Pal (P.W. 18).
2.3. On 30.04.2007, mother of Suparna, namely Saraswati Sarkar (P.W. 1) lodged an FIR before the O/C Baikhora PS alleging that Suparna
was subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home on demand of dowry and, accordingly Baikhora PS Case No. 33 of 2007 under Sections 498A
and 304B of IPC was registered and a Dy. Superintendent of Police, Sri Ratan Majumder (P.W. 17), investigated the case and ultimately
submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC.
2.4. Cognizance was taken on the basis of police report and on commitment of the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, charges were
framed against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable u/s 498A and 304B of IPC to which the accused persons pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
2.5. Prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and out of them P.Ws. 1 and 2 were the parents of the deceased and P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9
and 14 were all neighbours of the accused persons. P.Ws. 10, 11, 12 and 13 were the Panchayat members, who were present in the village
meeting held before Suparna was given to the hand of the accused persons. P.W. 8 was a witness present in the Jolaibari Hospital when Suparna
was taken to hospital for treatment. P.W. 15 was the scribe of the FIR. P.W. 16 prepared inquest report over the dead body. As already stated,
P.W. 17 is the I.O. of the case and P.W. 18 is the medical officer, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body.
3. Prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by defence and after closure of the prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined u/s 313
of Cr.P.C. and thereafter in their turn, they declined to adduce any defence evidence. Defence case was a bare denial of the prosecution case.
3.1. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge after elaborately noting down the evidence on record held the accused persons guilty of the charges and
accordingly sentenced them as aforesaid.
4. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik appearing on behalf of the appellant, has strenuously argued that the demand of a showcase or cash of Rs.
10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) and, thereafter, a ''ber jal'', in lieu of showcase, are nothing but concocted stories and the evidence on record is not
enough to arrive at a conclusion that the accused persons made any such demand and for non-fulfillment of the same Suparna was subjected to
cruelty. He has further contended that the accused persons are fishermen by profession and it is admitted by the parents of Suparna that livelihood
of accused persons was fishing and for their livelihood they, for arguments sake, even if claimed a ''ber jal'', such claim may not be termed as a
demand of dowry and, if the demand of dowry goes, the charge u/s 304B is also liable to fail and in that case the accused may be found guilty only
u/s 306 of IPC and not otherwise.
Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has heavily relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Appasaheb & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in AIR 2007 SC 763 and Narwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 2 SCC 47 .
5. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Debnath, per contra, has submitted that the initial demand of showcase and for not giving the same, demand of Rs.
10,000/- and on non-payment of the amount, demand of a ''ber jal'', proved consistent demand of dowry from the very inception of marriage and,
so there is no escape for the accused persons from the punishment in the given facts and circumstances of the case. He has also contended that
because of the cruelty exercised on Suparna she took shelter in her parental home and a criminal case was instituted in which the accused
appellant, Goutam was found guilty of committing offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC and he was convicted and sentenced but thereafter on
persuasion of the accused appellants, Suparna returned to matrimonial home but the accused persons could not come out of their greed of demand
of dowry and, ultimately life of Suparna met a tragic end in the matrimonial home. Since demand of dowry has been proved with all material
evidence and Suparna was subjected to cruelty on demand of dowry and she died because of burn injuries, the irresistible conclusion to arrive is
that of dowry death and nothing less. In support of his contention learned Addl. P.P. has referred the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in : AIR 2010 SC 2839 and Rajesh Bhatnagar Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in : AIR 2012 SC
2866 .
6. A bare reading of Section 304B of IPC speaks of following ingredients, requiring proof to establish a charge u/s 304B of IPC--
(i) Death should be caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such death should have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage;
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry;
(v) Deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death, by her husband or any other relative of her in connection with
demand of dowry.
7. The word, ''dowry'' has been defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 thus--
2. Definition of ''dowry''--In this Act, ""dowry"" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly--
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by a other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before (or any time
after the marriage)(in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include) dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation II--The expression ""valuable security"" has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code. (45 of 1860.)
The word, ''cruelty'' has been defined in Section 498A of IPC thus--
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.)
8. It is not disputed, rather an admitted fact that marriage between Suparna and accused Goutam was solemnized observing Hindu rites and
thereafter they lived and cohabited as husband and wife. It is also not disputed that Suparna died within seven years of her marriage due to burning
in the house of the accused appellants. The first and second ingredients of Section 304B of IPC, therefore since not disputed, have been
established. In respect of the third, fourth and fifth ingredients of dowry death, which prosecution requires to prove, we have meticulously
examined the evidence on record to consider the argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik and counter argument advanced by
learned Addl. P.P.
9. We are quite aware of the role of Courts in such cases of bride burning. The Supreme Court had an occasion to say about the role of Courts in
such cases. In the case of Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam & Ann Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1993) 2 SCC 684 : 1993 Cri LJ 1635 .
The Apex Court observed--
Of late there has been an alarming increase in cases relating to harassment, torture, abetted suicides and dowry deaths of young innocent brides.
This growing cult of violence and exploitation of the young brides, though keeps on sending shock waves to the civilised society whenever it
happens, continues unabated. There is a constant erosion of the basic human values of tolerance and the spirit of ""live and let live"". Lack of
education and economic dependence of women have encouraged the greedy perpetrators of the crime.
In the case at hand, the deceased, a young bride because of the torture and harassment for dowry, took shelter in her parental home and a criminal
case was instituted, but even thereafter the unfortunate young woman agreed to go back to the matrimonial home with a hope and aspiration
perhaps, looking forward for a life of mirth and merriment, but the unfortunate woman got the same treatment as before because of the greed of
dowry of the accused persons. Admittedly, the deceased died within seven years of her marriage and died an unnatural death because of burning.
Persistent demand of dowry is established in the evidence on record. The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence on record, rightly
arrived at a conclusion of guilt of the accused.
Regarding the role of Courts, the Apex Court in Kundula Bala (supra) has observed--
The role of courts, under the circumstances assumes greater importance and it is expected that the courts would deal with such cases in a more
realistic manner and not allow the criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities or insignificant lacunas in the evidence as otherwise
the criminals would receive encouragement and the victims of crime would be totally/discouraged by the crime going unpunished. The courts are
expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women....
10. The FIR was lodged immediately after the death of Suparna, i.e. on 30.04.2007, by P.W. 1, mother of Suparna. It has been (sic)ved as Exbt.
P.1. Allegation has been made in the FIR that Suparna was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons on demand of dowry. Nothing specific
was stated in the FIR as to what was demanded as dowry at the time of marriage and subsequent thereto. The informant is a semi-literate village
woman, who got the FIR scribed by P.W. 15. We cannot expect every minute detail of the fact in the FIR. Since there was specific allegation
made in the FIR that Suparna was subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home on demand of dowry, in our considered opinion, non-mentioning of
the specific items, demanded as dowry, may not be attached with undue importance.
10.1. P.Ws. 1 and 2 made consistent statements that at the time of marriage they have given furniture, utensils and other articles and cash of Rs.
5,000/- (rupees five thousand) as dowry and a showcase was also demanded by the accused persons but that could not be given by them. After
marriage Suparna was well for a few months but thereafter she was subjected to cruelty on demand of showcase, which was due to be given and
because of the cruelty Suparna had to leave her matrimonial home and took shelter in her parental home. A criminal case was instituted alleging
cruelty on Suparna and also alleging that Suparna was raped by-accused, Gopal and in that case accused, Goutam was found guilty u/s 498A of
IPC and was convicted. Thereafter accused, Goutam again pursued Suparna to return to the matrimonial home and, accordingly a village meeting
was held in presence of P.Ws. 10, 11, 12 and 13, wherein it was decided that Suparna will go back to her matrimonial home (sic) she was also
willing to go and, in that meeting, as per demand of the accused persons, father of Suparna had also agreed to give a ''ber jal'' within the month of
next ''Joystha''. Except some minor discrepancy and some negligible contradictions there is nothing to discard the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the
unfortunate parents of Suparna.
10.2. We find lot of confidence in the evidence of neighbours of the accused persons, i.e. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 14. We may take note of
evidence of P.W. 3 at first. She is the adjacent neighbour of the accused persons. She witnessed frequent quarrel in the house of the accused
persons and Suparna told her that the reason of quarrel was that the articles demanded in the marriage were not given. She also stated about the
earlier case in which accused Goutam was found guilty and the fact that after that case Suparna was taken back to the house of the accused
persons and again she witnessed quarrel in the house. She further stated that Suparna was not permitted to meet with others. On a day Suparna
was found weeping while went to fetch water and she told her that she (Suparna) had gone to her parents'' house once but returned only to face
the same quarrel and further told that she was asked by the accused persons to collect Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) from her parental
house. After 2/3 days of that occurrence Suparna was burnt down.
This evidence of P.W. 3 has not been shaken in any manner and it inspires all confidence.
10.3. Other prosecution witnesses also went to the house of the accused persons seeing the flame in their house and they noticed that Suparna
received severe burn injuries but the accused persons were reluctant towards her, whereas, they were engaged in extinguishing the fire of the hut
and Suparna was taken out from the hut by the accused, Goutam and she was lying by the side of the road in uncared condition. The neighbours
(witnesses) asked Goutam to immediately take Suparna to hospital since her condition was serious and thereafter P.W. 6 arranged a cradle and
then only P.W. 7 and accused, Goutam took her to Jolaibari Hospital, wherefrom she was referred to T.S. District Hospital, Udaipur and on the
following morning Suparna succumbed to the bum injuries.
10.4. P.Ws. 10, 11, 12 and 13 made consistent statements that a village meeting was held regarding return of Suparna to the matrimonial home.
P.W. 10 is a neighbour of the informant and an elderly person of the village. P.W. 11 is the Pradhan of the village. P.Ws. 12 and 13 are members
of the Panchayat Samiti and in their presence the accused Kumud demanded a ''ber jal'' which, P.W. 2, father of Suparna, agreed to give but in the
coming month of ''Jaistha''. In the month of Falgun she returned to her matrimonial home and the incident of burning occurred in the month of
''Baisakh''. P.W. 11 stated that before three days of the incident of burning, Suparna met him and told about the cruelty on her on the demand of
''ber jal''.
These witnesses have no enmity or ill relation with the accused persons. They have nothing to falsely implicate the accused. Their statements
deserve full consideration and we find nothing to doubt their testimony in any manner.
11. A meticulous reading of the evidence on record irresistibly concludes the incriminating network of fact that the accused persons persistently
made demand of dowry, initially a show case which could not be given, and thereafter for not giving the show case, an amount of Rs. 10,000/-,
and while money was not given, a ''ber jal'', in lieu thereof.
11.1. P.W. 1 stated that six days before her death Suparna visited her house and narrated about the cruelty exercised on her on demand of ber
jal''.
11.2. P.W. 2 stated that Suparna went to her husband''s house in the month of ''Falgun'' and thereafter she visited the parental home twice and she
died in the month of ''Baisakh''.
11.3. P.W. 3 stated that after 2/3 days, Suparna narrated her about the torture, the incident occurred and Suparna died due to burning.
11.4. P.W. 11 stated that three days before her death Suparna went to him and informed him about torture on her by her husband and in-laws
since ''ber jal'' was not given by her father.
Above statements makes it abundantly clear that ''soon before her death'' she was subjected to cruelty on demand of dowry.
Under such circumstances, besides other incriminating evidence on record, we find nothing inconsistent in the evidence to arrive at a contrary
finding than that of the finding arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
12. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has heavily relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Appasaheb (supra). Concentrating his argument on the
point that even if it is presumed that a ''ber jal'' was demanded it was for the professional business of the accused persons and that cannot be
termed as a demand of dowry. Learned counsel has referred to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2.
12.1. In the cross-examination, P.W. 1 stated that her son-in-law and his family members were fishermen and they used to do fishing by ''ber jal''.
12.2. P.W. 2 stated in cross-examination that accused persons were fishermen and his daughter (Suparna) told him about the demand of Rs.
10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) for doing business after purchasing ''ber jal''.
12.3. It is the settled position of law that evidence should be read as a whole and not in isolated scrutiny. It will be grossly improper to pick up a
particular line from the total statement of a witness and to arrive at a different conclusion. Ameticulous reading of the evidence on record clearly
spelt out that ''ber jal'' was demanded in lieu of the initial demand of showcase and subsequent demand of cash Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten
thousand). May be that demand was made for doing business but the inception and/or source of the demand was persistently as a dowry and not
otherwise.
12.4. In the case of Appasaheb (supra) there was no allegation of the demand of dowry. In that reported case the accused asked his wife, the
victim, to bring Rs. 1,000-1,200/- from her parents to meet the households expenses and to purchase some manure. In the given fact of that case
the Supreme Court considered that such demand does not come within the purview of dowry as contemplated in the definition of dowry. The fact
of that case, since clearly distinguishable to that of the fact of the present case, the ratio cannot be applied to arrive at a conclusion that the offence
will come under the purview of Section 306 of IPC as submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik. Since the decision of Appasaheb (supra)
cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our considered opinion, the ratio of the decision of Narwinder Singh
(supra) also cannot be applied. In the case of Narwinder Singh (supra) it has been held that if the demand of dowry goes there cannot be a
conviction u/s 304B of IPC but if the unnatural death is proved because of harassment, otherwise than demand of dowry, punishment u/s 306 of
IPC may be recorded.
13. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik, in course of his argument, has further submitted that father of Suparna earlier instituted a false case alleging
rape on Suparna by accused Gopal and also alleging cruelty on Suparna on demand of dowry by all the accused persons and in that case
prosecution could not establish the charge u/s 376 of IPC against accused Gopal and accordingly he was acquitted. Only accused appellant,
Goutam was found guilty of committing offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC in Sessions Trial Case No. 12(ST/B) 2005 against which an appeal
was preferred before this Court and, in appeal the accused appellant was acquitted. In course of argument learned counsel placed a copy of the
judgment, dated 06.07.2012 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2005, but the said judgment was never placed in the evidence on
record of this case. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has also tried to advance an argument stating that in the earlier criminal case there was no
mention of demand of showcase and that when showcase was not given, demand of Rs. 10,000/- and, thereafter demand of ''ber jal'', and, since
the demand of ''ber jal'' has been newly brought on record it cannot be believed.
The argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik, in our considered opinion, does not deserve any consideration since neither the
evidence of the previous case nor the judgments passed by the trial Court as well as this Court in appeal were brought on record in course of trial
of this case. According to us, every case should be decided on the basis of the evidence and materials brought on record in the particular case.
The word, ''evidence'' has been defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act thus--
Evidence"".--""Evidence"" means and includes--
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such
statements are called oral evidence;
(2) (all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court), such documents are called documentary evidence.
In view of the above definition, we are of the opinion that evidence means testimony of a witness, a document, or a material object brought on
record in course of trial following the procedure prescribed by law. Merely placing of a copy of a judgment in course of argument of an appeal
cannot help the appellants in any manner unless it was brought on record, for purpose of using any element of fact, according to law as an evidence
of the case. What was the fact of the earlier case and what was the evidence on record in that case, since not before us, we find no merit in the
argument.
14. There are certain other serious incriminating circumstances brought on record, which the accused persons were supposed to explain, at least to
say something in their examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. though not by adducing defence evidence.
14.1. Admittedly, the hut of the accused Goutam was completely gutted. The incident occurred at about 2.00/2.30 am of the night. Except
accused Goutam and his wife, the victim Suparna none else was in their hut. Other accused persons, as it appears from the evidence on record,
were in their respective huts. How Suparna was caught with fire and why smell of kerosene was present on her body has not been explained by
the accused persons. It is in the evidence of the witnesses, who are the neighbours of the accused persons, we find that on the previous evening,
accused Gita brought kerosene oil and kept the same in the hut of accused Gautam and they also stored water. When the hut of the accused was
burning, all of them tried to extinguish fire and Suparna was inside the hut and she was brought out by the accused Goutam and put her on the road
side without taking care of her for taking her to hospital. All of them were busy with extinguishing fire in the hut and when the villagers put it as an
exception and the witnesses asked Goutam that they must take Suparna to hospital first since her condition was serious, thereafter, P.W. 6
arranged a cradle and with that cradle Suparna was taken to hospital by accused Goutam and P.W. 7. According to P.W. 7, Suparna while on
way to hospital asked to save her and also asked Goutam to relieve her. Goutam rebuked her. She was taken to Jolaibari Hospital, where from
she was referred to T.S. District Hospital, Udaipur and on the following morning she died. The circumstances created extremely an incriminating
network of fact which the accused persons failed to explain in any manner.
14.2. Evidence of P.W. 18, the autopsy surgeon, has strengthened the case of the prosecution since the autopsy surgeon found smell of kerosene
oil on the dead body. It was a hundred percent burn injury, the deceased suffered. Since kerosene was brought as alleged on the previous evening
and kept in that room and smell of kerosene was present on the dead body of Suparna and she received hundred percent burn injury, and, since
no explanation advanced by accused Goutam as to how his wife was caught with fire having smell of kerosene on her body, the Court has no other
option but to draw a presumption that Suparna was burnt to death pouring kerosene oil.
14.3. Under the circumstances of the case we find relevance to refer the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar (supra) and in
the case of Rajesh Bhatnagar (supra). We have already discussed herein above, the demand of dowry was made persistently from the inception of
marriage till the death of the deceased. The ratio of the decision of Rajesh Bhatnagar (supra) supports the case of the prosecution. In paragraph 11
of the judgment the Apex Court observed thus--
11. From the above evidence, it is clear that there was persistent demand of dowry by the accused persons and they had killed her by sprinkling
kerosene on her and putting her on fire. There can be no dispute that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage.
Thus, the ingredients of Section 304B are fully satisfied in the present case. We are least satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, that merely because the letters on record do not specifically mention the dowry demands, such letters have to be
construed by themselves without reference to other evidence and rebutting the presumption of a dowry death, giving the benefit of doubt to the
accused. These letters have to be read in conjunction with the statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. It is difficult for one to imagine that these letters
should have been worded by the deceased as submitted on behalf of the accused. She never knew with certainty that she was going to die shortly.
The letters clearly spell out the beatings given to her, the cruelties inflicted on her and reference to the conduct of the family. The evidence has to be
appreciated in its entirety. Neither the letters can be ignored nor the statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. If the letters had made no reference to
beatings, cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to the deceased and not demonstrating the grievance, apprehensions and fear that she was entertaining
in her mind, but were letters simpliciter mentioning about her well being and that she and her in-laws were living happily without complaint against
each other, the matter would have been different. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, it has specifically
been recorded that the letters produced in those cases had clearly stated that relations between the parties were cordial and there was no
reference to any alleged cruelty or harassment meted out to the deceased by any of the accused in that case. On the contrary, in the letters, it was
specifically recorded that the deceased was happy with all the members of the family. The oral and documentary evidence in those cases had
clearly shown that the deceased was never subjected to any cruelty or harassment. In those cases, there was no evidence of demand of dowry and
cruelty to the deceased, which certainly is not the case here. In the case before us, there is definite ocular, expert and documentary evidence to
show that the deceased died an unnatural death, she was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment, there was demand of dowry of specific items like
refrigerator, television and cooler and she died within seven years of her marriage.
14.4. In the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court held that the expressions ''in connection with the marriage'' cannot be given a
restricted or a narrower meaning. They must be understood in their plain language and with reference to their meaning in common parlance. These
are the provisions relating to human behaviour and, therefore, cannot be given such a narrower meaning, which would defeat the very purpose of
the provisions of the Act.
14.5. In our considered opinion, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the demand of dowry was made persistently and the victim bride
was subjected to cruelty on demand of dowry and, so the conviction of the accused persons u/s 498A and 304B of IPC was rightly recorded and
it does not deserve interference.
15. While the accused persons were found guilty both under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC a single punishment u/s 304B of IPC, according to
law, is sufficient. The Supreme Court in the case of Shanti & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1991) 1 SCC 371 has observed that:
Sections 498A and 304B cannot be held to be mutually exclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. u/s 304B it is the ""dowry
death"" that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of the marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498A
and the husband or his relative would be liable for subjecting the woman to ""cruelty"" any time after the marriage. Further a person charged and
acquitted u/s 304B can be convicted u/s 498A without charge being there, if such a case is made out. But from the point of view of practice and
procedure and to avoid technical defects it is necessary in such cases to frame charges under both the sections and if the case is established they
can be convicted under both the sections but no separate sentence need be awarded u/s 498A in view of the substantive sentence being awarded
for the major offence u/s 304B .
16. Let us now have a glimpse to the quantum of punishment.
It is the solemn duty of the Court to impose a proper punishment as otherwise law will loose its effectiveness and it will result in travesty of justice.
While considering the punishment to be given to the accused, the Court should be alive not only to the right of the criminal to be awarded just and
fair punishment by administering justice tempered with such mercy as the criminal may justly deserve, but also to the rights of the victims of the
crime to have the assailant appropriately punished and the society''s reasonable expectation from the Court for the appropriate deterrent
punishment conforming to the gravity of the offence and consistent with the public abhorrence for the heinous crime committed by the accused.
The accused persons in the present case committed a serious crime of bride burning for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. The accused
Goutam, being the husband of deceased, Suparna was supposed to protect her, to give her food and shelter and also supposed to honour her as a
wife and share with her the conjugal life. Other accused persons, no doubt, demanded dowry but had the accused Goutam protected his wife from
the demand made by the other members, her life would not reach such a tragic end.
17. In our considered opinion, therefore, accused appellant Goutam is the principal offender in the case and gravity of offence committed by him
may not be scaled at par with that of the gravity of offence committed by his parents and brother. The incident occurred in the hut of Goutam
during dead hours of night but he failed to come out with any explanation and so having not oblivious to the gravity of the offence we consider that
there should not be any sympathy to accused Goutam and the punishment of imprisonment for life for the offence of bride burning, inflicted by the
learned trial Judge in respect of accused appellant Goutam, is maintained.
18. In respect of other accused, namely Gopal Nama and Gita Nama, we are of the opinion that they being greedy members of the family and/or
the relatives of accused Goutam demanded the dowry and, so, they along with accused Kumud may be sentenced to imprisonment of seven years
and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further SI for one year.
19. Conviction of all the accused appellants is maintained. Sentence of imprisonment for life in respect of accused, Goutam is also maintained.
Sentence in respect of accused appellants, Kumud Nama, Gita Nama and Gopal Nama is modified to the extent that they should suffer RI for
seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further SI for one year. Send back the
LC records along with a copy of this judgment.