SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellant was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 9/96 (138/94) for having committed dowry death of his wife Suman. Learned Judge vide judgment dated January 1, 1998 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: Under Section 304B, I.P.C. : To suffer Imprisonment for life.Under Section 49 -A, I.P.C. : To suffer three years Rigorous Imprisonmentand fine of Rs. 2,500/ - in default to furthersuffer six months' Simple Imprisonment. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu commenced the Investigation under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. on the written report submitted on July 13, 1994 by Virendra Pratap Singh, the brother of deceased Suman. It was inter alia stated in the report that Suman, who was married to appellant in the month of April, 1992 used to be harassed and humiliated by the appellant. On July 13, 1994 she was admitted to the hospital. The informant found a letter kept by her in her blouse, according to which, Suman consumed poison because soon after her marriage she used to be tortured by the appellant. The letter was enclosed with the written report. The Investigating Officer arrested the appellant and after usual Investigation filed the charge -sheet. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. Charge under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B, I.P.C. was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses. In his explanation under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant pleaded innocence and stated that Suman committed suicide because she failed twice or thrice in her B. A. examination. Two witnesses were examined in defence to establish that demand of dowry was never made by the appellant. Learned Trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently criticised the impugned judgment and contended that it could not be established that soon before her death Suman was either treated with cruelty or harassed in connection with the demand of dowry. In absence of any such evidence it is not permissible to take recourse to the legal presumption envisaged in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, learned Counsel took us through the statements of prosecution witnesses and placed reliance on Ratnesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh, VII (2001) SLT 356=IV (2001) CCR 177 (SC)=JT 2001(8) SC 599; Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Anr. 1999 Cr. L.R. (SC) 141; Mahendra Singh and Anr. Gayatribai v. State of M.P., I (2003) SLT 260 (SC)=I (2003) CCR 131 (SC)=1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731; Gurucharan Kumar and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 SCC (Cri.) 675; Bhakhar Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, II (1995) CCR 729=1995 Cri. LJ. 1345.
(3.) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Suman was treated with cruelty soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry and as she died within 7 years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act was rightly drawn.;