VISHNU PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the first instance, Mr Luthra, who appears for the petitioners, submits that the petitioner No.6 died during the pendency of the present revision petition on 06.05.2002. Therefore, insofar as the petitioner No.6 is concerned, this revision petition is not being pressed on account of the fact that proceedings against him would stand abated. All the other petitioners have been charged for having committed offences under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. Mr Luthra argued that insofar as Section 304-B IPC is concerned, the offence is not at all made out even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken to be true and correct at this stage. He submitted that for an offence under Section 304-B IPC to be made out, it is essential that the death of a woman should have been caused either by burns or bodily injuries or by circumstances which were otherwise than normal and that too within seven years of her marriage. Another ingredient, according to Mr Luthra, is that it should also be established that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry. It is only then that the death would fall within the expression ?dowry death? and the offence under Section 304-B IPC would be made out. In the present case, according to Mr Luthra, none of the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are made out even if the prosecution story is taken to be true and correct. He referred to the opinion of Dr Gaurav Aggarwal who was the Senior Resident, Forensic Medicine, U.C.M.S. and G.T.B. Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95 which was filed alongwith the charge-sheet. This opinion into the cause of death of the deceased (Asha W/o Vishnu Sharma) is dated 08.02.2000. The opinion into the cause of death reads as under:-

(2.) In the context of this opinion, Mr Luthra submitted that there was no question of Section 304-B IPC being attracted inasmuch as the death was caused due to extensive pulmonary tuberculosis which could not be regarded as an abnormal circumstance. He also contended that even as per the complaint, the last event which could have triggered, if at all, the death of the petitioner on account of dowry demands, took place on 19.01.1998 which is exactly one year prior to the date of death of the deceased (Asha) which took place on 01.01.1999. According to him, there was no proximate and live link between the demand and the death. Therefore, he submitted that on both counts, the offence under Section 304-B IPC is not made out and the petitioners should be discharged of this offence.

(3.) Mr Pawan Sharma, who appeared for the State, argued that all the ingredients for demand of dowry have been set out in the complaint and other documents accompanying the charge-sheet and the cruelty is all the more aggravated as the deceased was suffering from a disease such as pulmonary tuberculosis and, therefore, the charge has been rightly framed.