GARG, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 12. 12. 1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 36/89 by which he acquitted the accused respondents of the charges for the offence under sections 306 and 304b IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances:- On 23. 4. 1998 at about 2. 05 PM, the accused respondent No. 1 Krishnalal lodged on oral report Ex. P/12 before PW 11 Jagmalram, SHO, Police Station Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar stating inter- alia that he was married with Mst. Raju aged about 20 years, daughter of Bachnaram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in the year 1984 and his father had already died before 15 years back and since then he was living with his mother Prem Kanwar (accused respondent No. 2) and he was not in service and thus, he was unemployed and on that day, he went out from this house for some work and when the returned back at about 1. 30 PM, he found crowd at his house and also found fire in his house and people were extinguishing the fire and he cam to know that his wife, deceased was burnt and died and, therefore, he had come to inform the police. On this report, police registered the FIR No. 7/88 and started investigation. During investigation, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and the post mortem report is Ex. P/3, where the doctors opined that cause of the death of the deceased was Asphyxia due to ante-mortem burns. When the investigation in FIR No. 7/88 was going on, in the meanwhile, PW1 Bachnaram, father of the deceased, lodged a written report Ex. P/1 on 26. 4. 1988 before Police Station Purani Abadi,sri Ganganagar stating inter-alia that all the accused respondents have murdered his daughter (deceased) by burning her and he had also come to know that a report was also lodged on behalf of the accused respondents stating therein that deceased had committed suicide, but the fact was that accused respondents have killed her. IT was further stated in the report that all the accused respondents used to harass and torture her as she was illiterate lady and accused respondent No. 1 Krishnalal (husband of the deceased) was an educated person and accused respondents used to say that in dowry, nothing was given to them and thus, they used to torture, harass and humiliate her. IT was further stated in the report that action be taken against the accused respondents for killing her daughter (deceased) by burning. On this report, police chalked out FIR Ex. P/2 for the offence u/sec. 306, 304b IPC and started investigation. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused respondents for the offence under Section 306, 304b IPC in the Court of Magistrate holding inter-alia that it was a case of dowry death. Therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 22. 8. 1988, the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar framed charges against the accused respondents for the offence under sections 306 and 304b IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents. The accused respondents denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Therefore, statements of the accused respondents u/sec. 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded. No evidence in defence was produced by the accused respondents. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar through his judgment and order dated 12. 12. 1989 acquitted the accused respondents of all the charges framed against them holding inter-alia:- 1. That it is a case of suicide by the deceased. 2. That death of the deceased was caused due to burning and has taken place within seven years of the marriage. 3. That PW 1 Bachnaram, father of the deceased, took the deceased to his house at the time of marriage of his son and kept the deceased in his house for 12 months and during that period, nobody came from her in-laws' house to take her back. 4. That at the time of marriage of son of PW 4 Ratiram, PW 1 Bachnaram and PW 4 Ratiram went to the house of her in-laws' to take deceased, where accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (Mother- in-law of the deceased) expressed her displeasure and told that deceased be taken away by them and her clothes were through away. 5. That above facts were admitted by the learned Sessions Judge at pages 19 and 20 of his impugned judgment. However, he observed that this statement of accused respondent NO. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of the deceased) is to some extent objectionable, but no case of dowry death or abatement of suicide is made from this part of her statement. 6. That prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondents for the offence u/sec. 306 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 12. 12. 1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. In this appeal, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan has submitted that impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is self-contradictory on the point that when he has come to the conclusion at page 19 and 20 of his impugned judgment that PW1 Bachnaram, father of the deceased, took her to his house at the time of marriage of his son and he kept deceased in this house for 12 months and during that period, nobody came from her in-laws' house to take her back and when PW 1 Bachnaram and PW 4 Ratiram went to her in-laws' house to take deceased for attending marriage of son of PW4 Ratiram, at that time, accused respondent No. 3 Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of deceased) expressed her displeasure and told that deceased be taken away by them and her clothes were through away, as case of dowry death is clearly made out against the accused respondents and thus, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are not based on proper appreciation of evidence, but are self-contradictory and hence, should be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondents supported the impugned judgment and order dated 12. 12. 1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the learned counsel for the accused respondents and perused the record of the case. Before proceeding further, relationship of the accused respondent with the deceased must be mentioned here:- Name of accused appellants Relationship with the deceased 1. Krishnalal Husband 2. Puran Chand Uncle-in-law 3. Prem Kanwar Mother-in-law
(3.) IN Shanti vs. State of Haryana (1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has an occasion to explain the ingredients of Sec. 304b IPC. His Lordship K. Jayachandra Reddy (as he then was) said "a careful analysis of Sec. 304b IPC shows that this section has the following essentials:- 1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. 2. such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. 3. She must have been 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 demand for dowry. What Sec. 304b IPC requires is that death of the woman should be unnatural. In Shanti vs. State of Haryana (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that for applicability of Sec. 304 B IPC question whether unnatural death of a woman was homicidal or suicidal is irrelevant. Sec. 304 B IPC raises a presumption of culpability against the husband or relative hitherto unknown to our jurisprudence. ;