RAJKUMARI vs THE STATE OF C.G.

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code,Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 year

she has stated that this matter was of 8-10-15 days prior to the date of death. But, Subaliya (PW7), sister-in-law of the deceased has stated that after",

marriage of the deceased she never met her. She has further stated that a talk had taken place between them after the marriage, but the deceased",

never told her about the quarrel alleged to have taken place between the deceased and her mother-in-law. Apart from the above, there is no evidence",

on record regarding harassment or dowry made by the Appellant.,

From the above, it is clear that though Raviram (PW3), father of the deceased, Pramod (PW5), brother of the deceased have stated that 8-10",

days prior to the date of death of the deceased, she had told them that her mother-in-law used to harass her for demand of dowry, but this fact is not",

mentioned in their case diary statements. Similarly, Sakhibai (PW6), mother of the deceased has also stated that the deceased had told her sister-in-",

law Subaliya (PW7) about the demand of dowry by the mother-in-law, but Subaliya (PW7) has not supported the above statement.",

Thus, there is no legally admissible evidence on record on the basis of which it can be presumed that the deceased was ever harassed or tortured",

by her mother-in-law (the Appellant).,

Contrary to their case diary statements, Raviram (PW3), Ramlal (PW4), Pramod (PW5), Sakhibai (PW6) and Subaliya (PW7), all relatives of the",

deceased, have stated in their Court statements that when the deceased was hospitalised, on being asked, she had told that her mother-in-law (the",

Appellant) had made her drink acid which is used for filling in the battery. Since this fact is not mentioned in their case diary statements, therefore, it is",

also clear that all the above witnesses have exaggerated their statements in the Court during trial.,

As per the prosecution story, on 20.3.2000, dying declaration (Ex.P5) of the deceased was recorded by Naib-Tahsildar S.D. Thakur (PW16). S.D.",

Thakur has stated that while recording the dying declaration (Ex.P5), the deceased, on being asked, told that due to not being done some work in",

proper manner, a quarrel had taken place between her and her mother-in-law (the Appellant). The quarrel had taken place between them for the first",

time and she, at her own will, had consumed the acid which is used in battery. He has further stated that during the whole session of recording of her",

dying declaration, she was fully conscious and was able to speak clearly. He has admitted that the dying declaration was recorded in two different",

inks because ink of the pen which was first being used for recording of the dying declaration had got exhausted. This witness has further stated that at,

the time of recording of the dying declaration, the doctor was not present in the hospital, but as per the statement of Dr. Meri Kutti (PW12), she had",

remained present at the time of recording of the dying declaration. For the above reason, the Trial Court has disbelieved the dying declaration (Ex.P5)",

recorded by the Naib-Tahsildar.,

On minute examination of the material available on record, I find that though Raviram (PW3) and Pramod (PW5) have stated that once the",

deceased had told them soon before her death about the demand of dowry and harassment being given to her by the Appellant yet I find no conclusive,

evidence on record to establish that the deceased was harassed by the Appellant soon before her death.,

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:Â​",

“(1) That the 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 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 such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death.â€​,

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 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",

21Â​22),

“21. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is 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 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 societies. Such payments are not,

enveloped within the ambit of 'dowry'. Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304ÂB should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to,

be given in connection with the marriage.,

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 death'. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately",

before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity 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",

dowryÂrelated 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 been the immediate cause of her,

death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient",

to snuff its cord from the concept 'soon before her death'.â€​,

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 reasonable doubt that the husband or,

his relative has subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. Similarly, to establish the",

offence under Section 498ÂA IPC the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the husband or his relative has subjected the victim to,

cruelty as defined in clauses (a) and (b) of the Explanation to Section 498ÂA IPC. In the present case, the prosecution has not been able to prove",

beyond reasonable 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 18Â​5Â​2004.â€​,

In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the prosecution has not been able to make out a case of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code",

against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.,

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge",

framed against her.,

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,