HIRA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3. 12. 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur convicting the appellants Hira Ram and his wife Smt. Rukma for offence under Section 304-B I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 years simple imprisonment. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 498a I. P. C. and sentenced to 3 years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment. Both the sentenced have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during the trial is that on 19. 1. 96 D. W. 3 Trilok Ram submitted a written First Information Report Ex. P12 at Police Station, Jaswantgarh stating inter alia that his uncle's daughter Buli was married to one Harphool son of appellant Hira Ram of village Laidy. Last evening he was informed that while no member of the family was in house Buli accidentally slipped in the tank and died on account of drowning. THE appellants came to know about the incident when they returned from the field. THE information of the incident was given to the parents of Buli. It was further stated that Buli was married to Harpool about 4 years back, she was 19 years old sick and issueless lady. On this information police commenced inquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No external injury was found on the dead body. In the opinion of the Medical Board Mst. Buli died of asphyxia due to drowning.

(3.) ANALYZING the provision recently the Apex Court in Sunil Bajaj vs. State of M. P. Reported in 2001 (9) SCC page 417 has pointed out the following essential ingredients of offence under Section 304b I. P. C. " (1) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) such death must have occurred within 7 years of her marriage; (3) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry. " The Court held that it is only when the aforesaid ingredients are established by the acceptable evidence such death shall be called "dowry death" and as such husband or his relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Thus, in case of offence under Section 304b I. P. C. an exception is made by deeming provision as to the nature of death as "dowry death" and that the husband or the relatives as the case may be is deemed to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to prove these aspects but on proving the existence of the ingredients of the said offence by convincing evidence. At the cost of repetition it must be noticed that the expression "soon before" is relevant when Section 113b of the Evidence Act and Section 304b are pressed into service. The burden is on the prosecution to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Thus, it is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman for demand of dowry, if Section 304b I. P. C. is pressed, it must have happened soon before the death. The said expression is no doubt elastic in nature and can refer to period either immediately before her death or seven a few days or even a few weeks. However, proximity with her death is the pivot indicated by the expression.