Conviction,Sentence
Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of
Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation
met her in Sirpur Fair. At that time, the deceased had told him that she was being harassed by her in-laws for not bringing T.V., Almirah, Cooler etc.",
In paragraph 5, he has stated that after 6-7 months of the marriage of the deceased, when he visited the matrimonial house of the deceased, the",
deceased had complained him and 4-5 months thereafter, when he again visited the matrimonial house of the deceased, at that time also, the deceased",
had complained him. He has further stated that he was present at the time of preparation of the inquest. At that time, since he was sad, he did not",
make any complaint.,
12. Santram (PW6), another brother-in-law of the deceased is the witness before whom some burnt pieces of clothes were seized from the spot vide",
Ex.P4.,
13. Santosh Kumar (PW7), another brother-in-law of the deceased has stated that 2 years prior to her death, the deceased had attended the marriage",
ceremony of his daughter. At that time, the deceased had complained against her in-laws that they harass her for dowry.",
14. Dr. N.K. Mandape (PW8) examined the deceased on 22.2.1999. He has stated that she was burnt and was not able to make a statement. Dr.,
G.P. Dewangan (PW9), Medical College Hospital, Raipur has stated that on 22.2.1999, at about 3:00 p.m., the deceased died and an intimation of",
which he had sent to Police Station Maudahapara vide Ex.P7.,
15. Sub-Inspector G.S. Kuruwanshi (PW10) did the morgue inquiry. He prepared seizure memo against seizure of burnt pieces of clothes vide Ex.P4.,
He seized a stove made of brass, a match-stick and 50-60 ml. of kerosene vide Ex.P9.",
16. Head Constable Shoukilal (PW11) registered Ex.P11, the numbered morgue at Police Station Mahasamund. Inspector H.O. Gupta (PW12), on the",
basis of the morgue inquiry, registered FIR (Ex.P13). Tahsildar Ajay Yadav (PW14) prepared inquest (Ex.P1) on 22.2.1999. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Dadu",
(PW-15) has stated that he conducted post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and gave his report (Ex.P16) in which he stated,
that the scalp hair had smell of kerosene and the death was due to cardio- respiratory failure as a result of burns and its complications.,
17. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage in unnatural circumstances due to burn",
injuries. As per the Court statement of Draupadi Bai (PW1), mother of the deceased that the deceased was living happily in her matrimonial house for",
about 5 years after the marriage. Though she has stated that when she had visited the matrimonial house of the deceased 1-2 times, at that time, the",
deceased had complained her about the harassment being done with her by the in-laws, but when did she go to the matrimonial house of the deceased",
and when did the deceased complained her has not been mentioned by her in her case diary statement. Though she has stated that 15 days prior to the,
death of the deceased, when she met with the deceased in the Sirpur Fair, the deceased had told her about the demand of dowry by the Appellants.",
But, this statement of the witness is not acceptable because as per her own statement, after the marriage, the deceased was living happily for about 5",
years. The deceased had never made her such complaint earlier and such complaint would have been made her in a fair is not acceptable.,
18. Laxman (PW5) has stated that after the marriage, the deceased had been living happily for about 6 months, but thereafter, the deceased started",
making complaints and he had been persuading and sending her back. 1 year prior to her death, when she met him, she complained him about the",
demand of dowry by the Appellants. Whereas, Draupadi Bai (PW1) has stated about meeting with the deceased 15 days prior to the death of the",
deceased. Draupadi Bai (PW1), mother of the deceased, Santram (PW6), brother-in-law of the deceased and Santosh Kumar (PW7), another",
brother-in-law of the deceased have categorically stated that Laxman (PW5), brother of the deceased was living separately from his family at Raipur",
for about 8-10 years. When Laxman (PW5) was living separately and was not living with his family, in such a situation, the deceased complained him,",
appears unreliable. Hariram (PW3), brother-in-law of the deceased has stated that 1 day prior to the death of the deceased, he and Bharat, brother of",
the deceased had stayed at the matrimonial house of the deceased in the night, but the deceased had not made them any complaint. At the time of",
preparation of inquest (Ex.P1), Laxman (PW5) was present. At that time also, no complaint was made by him or by any other witness.",
19. Necessary ingredients for invoking the provisions of Sections 302, 304B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 113B of the Indian",
Evidence Act have been discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of (2008) 4 Supreme 228 (Narayanamurthy v. State of Karnataka). In,
paragraphs 17 and 18 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus:",
17. The  basic  ingredients  to  attract  the provisions of Section 304B, IPC, are as follows: ""(1) That  the Â",
death  of  the woman  was  caused  by  any  burns  or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not,
normal;,
(2) such  death  occurs  within  7 years from the date of her marriage;,
(3) that  the  victim  was subjected  to  cruelty  or  harassment  by her  husband  or  any Â,
relative  of  her husband;,
(4) such  cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (5) it  is  established  that Â,
such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death.""",
18. In the case of unnatural death of a married woman as in a case of this nature, the husband could be prosecuted under Sections 302, 304ÂB and",
306 of the  Penal  Code.    The  distinction  as  regards commission  of  an  offence  under Â,
one  or  the  other provisions  as  mentioned  hereinbefore  came  up  for consideration before a Division,
Bench of this Court in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, [2001 (8) SCC 633] wherein it was held: (SCC p. 643, paras 21Â22) ""21. Thus, Â",
there  are  three occasions  related  to  dowry.    One  is before  the  marriage,  second  is Â",
at  the time  of  marriage  and  the  third  is  'at any time' after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to,
be an unending period.    But  the  crucial  words  are  'in connection  with  the  marriage  of  the,
said parties'. This means that giving or agreeing  to  give  any  property  or valuable  security  on  any Â,
of  the  above three  stages  should  have  been  in connection  with  the  marriage  of  the,
parties.    There  can  be  many  other instances  for  payment  of  money  or giving property as,
between the spouses.,
For  example,  some  customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in  different Â",
societies.    Such  payments are not enveloped within the ambit of 'dowry'. Hence the dowry mentioned in Section  304ÂB Â,
should  be  any  property or valuable security given or agreed to be  given  in  connection  with  the marriage.,
22. It  is  not  enough  that harassment  or  cruelty  was  caused  to the woman with a demand for dowry at,
some  time,  if  Section  304ÂB  is  to  be invoked. But, it should have happened 'soon  before  her Â",
death'.    The  said phrase,  no  doubt,  is  an  elastic expression  and  can  refer  to  a Â",
period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before  it.    But  the  proximity Â,
to  her death  is  the  pivot  indicated  by  that expression.    The  legislative  object  in,
providing  such  a  radius  of  time  by employing  the  words  'soon  before  her death' is to,
emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been  the  aftermath  of  such  cruelty  or",
harassment.    In  other  words,  there should be a perceptible nexus between her  death  and  the  dowryÂ‐",
related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her.,
If  the interval  which  elapsed between the  infliction  of  such  harassment  or cruelty and her death is wide,
the court would be in a position to gauge that in all  probabilities  the  harassment  or cruelty  would  not  have Â,
been  the immediate  cause  of  her  death.    It  is hence  for  the  court  to  decide, Â",
on  the facts  and  circumstances  of  each  case, whether  the  said  interval  in  that particular Â",
case  was  sufficient  to  snuff its  cord  from  the  concept  'soon  before her death'.""",
20. In (2013) 14 SCC 678 (Indrajit Sureshprasad Bind v. State of Gujarat), the Supreme Court has observed thus:",
9. To  establish  the  offence  of  dowry  death under Section 304ÂB IPC the prosecution has to prove beyond Â",
reasonable  doubt  that  the  husband  or  his relative  has  subjected  the  deceased  to Â,
cruelty  or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before  her  death.    Similarly,  to  establish Â",
the  offence under Section 498ÂA IPC the prosecution has to prove beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the  husband Â,
or  his relative has subjected the victim to cruelty as defined in  clauses  (a)  and  (b)  of  the  Explanation Â,
to  Section 498ÂA IPC.  In the present case, the prosecution has not  been  able to prove  beyond  reasonableÂ",
doubt that the  appellants  have  subjected  the  deceased  to  any cruelty or harassment. Further, we have noticed",
from Ext. 31 written by PW 3 to the deceased on 24Â4Â2004 that after talking to the deceased on telephone, he was satisfied that she was living",
happily and was not being misbehaved with.  No other material having come in evidence to establish that the appellants instigated the deceased to,
commit suicide, it is difficult for the Court to hold that the appellants had in any way abetted the suicide by the deceased on 18Â5Â2004.""",
21. In the light of above, in the present case, on minute examination of the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased was married 5 years prior",
to her death. She had 2 children from her wedlock. Initially, after the marriage, she had not made any complaint regarding harassment. She made",
complaints on some occasions. It is stated that she complained to her mother Draupadi Bai (PW1) and brother Laxman (PW5), but statements of",
these two witnesses do not appear to be natural. They have exaggerated their version before the Court. Even if their testimony is taken as it is, there",
is no evidence on record to establish that the deceased was harassed by the Appellants soon before her death. Thus, the offence alleged against them",
under Section 304B IPC is not established beyond reasonable doubt.,
22. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of the charge",
framed against them.,
23. It is reported that the Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months from today in terms of Section 437A,
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.,
24. Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,