RAJESH KANJIBHAI OZA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants original accused against the judgment and order dated 31st July 2002 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.297 of 1996. By the said judgment, the learned Judge was pleased to convict the appellants original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304B read with Section 114, 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The husband appellant No.1 and appellant No.3 mother -in -law have been convicted under Section 304B of the IPC and they are ordered to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000 in default, to further undergo SI for three months.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The principal argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no recent demand of dowry as defined under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. From the perusal of the record we find that demand of dowry is not established because, there was no such demand which was very recent. The marriage was of 3 years old and therefore demand of dowry cannot be said to be existing.

(3.) THAT leaves us with the question as to how the deceased has died. The question of death by electrocution is not established beyond reasonableness. What is established is that she died of burns of kerosene. There is not evidence as to who poured kerosene. Possibility of deceased burning herself cannot be ruled out. The husband can be held guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC for driving the deceased to commit suicide. In that background, the case of the mother -in -law is left out. In these circumstances, we are prepared to acquit mother -in -law under Section 304B of the IPC and alter the conviction under Section 304B to Section 306 of IPC qua the husband appellant No.1 for driving the wife to commit suicide.