KASHI RAM PUJARI Vs. STATE OF NCT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complainant's Appeal under the proviso to Section -372, Cr.P.C., preferred by the deceased's father, who also deposed during the trial as PW -1. The Appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 31.03.2011 in SC No.183/2008 in which the respondents (hereafter referred to as "the accused") were acquitted of the charges for having committed the office under Sections -498A/406/304B read with Section -34, IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution's case before the Trial Court was that the first respondent Aashish (hereafter referred to as "the husband") married Deepa Tiwari on 02.03.2006. It was alleged that the marriage was a stormy one, in the course of which, Deepa was repeatedly harassed and treated with cruelty even to the extent of being denied food on account of demands made for dowry. The prosecution alleged that in 2006 on two different occasions, Rs.1,00,000/ - was paid and that it was made clear that Deepa was bad match for the husband who would later be married to someone else, in order to get at least Rs.15,000,00/ - in dowry. It was also alleged that Deepa had on an earlier occasion approached the police and complained specifically about dowry harassment and even left the matrimonial home to be with her parents. After re -assurances were given to her and the parents i.e. PW -1 and PW -3, that she would be treated and looked after well, she returned to the matrimonial home. The prosecution further alleged that 15 days before her death, a further demand of Rs.2,00,000/ - had been made by the accused and that ultimately she died on 17.12.2006 on account of unnatural reasons, even though she had been admitted to the hospital on 16.12.2006.

(3.) IT is submitted by the Appellant that all the ingredients that make up the offence under Section -304 -B, IPC were proved in accordance with law. Counsel emphasized the fact that in this case, Deepa died on 17.12.2006, barely nine months after the marriage. The testimonies of PW -1 and 3 conclusively proved that repeated demands for huge amounts were made by the accused. The evidence in the form of testimonies of PW -7 also supported the statements of these witnesses. Since the death had occurred within seven years, admittedly, the Court should have been alive to this fact and taken into consideration the further circumstance that dowry demands cannot be proved like other facts. Counsel submitted that inherently demands for dowry stand on a different category than other events or facts which can be proved or inferred on the basis of materials. The testimonies of witnesses invariably have to be looked into. It was further argued in this context that the statements of PW -1 and 2 were consistent with regard to dowry demands and the consequent cruelty both physical and mental, meted out to Deepa. These had been mentioned during the investigation to the Executive Magistrate PW -7 at the earliest point of time. They were also deposed to during the trial. Having regard to these circumstances, the Trial Court clearly fell into error in holding that there was no specific demands and that general allegations could not be given credence.