AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction,Sentence
Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code,Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years
deceased was performed with the Appellant looking to his wealthy condition. After the marriage, the deceased along with the Appellant had visited",
her maternal house on his motorcycle for about 15 times. Both lived happily at her maternal house and returned on the said motorcycle. No dispute,
had taken place between them before the dispute which had taken place between them during Dussehra festival. Tikaram (PW3), maternal uncle of",
the deceased has also admitted that he had got the motorcycle of the Appellant repaired at his own will. Meaning thereby, the Appellant had not",
created any pressure over Tikaram (PW3). Though Pinki (PW4), sister of the deceased has further stated that the Appellant had told that he will sell",
out ornaments of the deceased for repairing of his motorcycle and on refusal of the deceased he had slapped her, this witness has also admitted that",
the motorcycle of the Appellant had severely got damaged in an accident and, therefore, a talk had taken place for purchase of a new motorcycle for",
him. This witness has further admitted that thereafter father of the deceased Tilakram (PW5) had told that he will get the motorcycle of the Appellant,
repaired and he had got the motorcycle repaired. This witness has also categorically admitted that prior to that the Appellant had not made any,
demand for motorcycle. Tilakram (PW5) has also admitted that the Appellant already had a motorcycle which was purchased by the Appellant,
himself. Though this witness has stated that at the time of construction of roof over the house of the Appellant, he had made a demand for money, but",
this fact is not mentioned in the case diary statement of this witness. Even if any such demand was made, that cannot be said to be a demand for",
dowry. Rather, that was a request for a financial help. This witness has also categorically admitted that after the marriage, whenever the deceased",
along with the Appellant visited his house (maternal house of the deceased), they lived there happily and returned. Dehutibai (PW6), mother of the",
deceased has deposed that after the marriage, when the deceased had visited her maternal house, she had told that the Appellant was harassing her",
for demand of a sum of Rs.50,000/-, a motorcycle and jewellery. According to this witness, since the marriage of the deceased was solemnised",
recently, she, thinking that a tension could arise, did not tell this fact to anyone. Her this statement is not acceptable because even if this was the",
situation she could have disclosed this fact at least to her husband Tilakram (PW5), but she did not do so, which appears to be unnatural. This witness",
has also admitted that after the marriage, the deceased along with the Appellant had visited maternal house of the deceased 15-20 times and they had",
lived there happily and returned.,
On a minute appreciation of the aforestated evidence, it is clear that though the deceased died due to burn within seven years of her marriage,",
from the evidence it is also clear that at the time of marriage or thereafter there was no demand for dowry. The Appellant already had a motorcycle,
which he himself had purchased. On this motorcycle, both the Appellant and the deceased had visited maternal house of the deceased 15-20 times and",
they had lived there happily and returned. No dispute had taken place between them ever and the deceased had never made any complaint. Though,
Dehutibai (PW6), mother of the deceased has stated that after the marriage, when the deceased had visited her maternal house, she had told that the",
Appellant was making demand for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, a motorcycle and jewellery, this fact was not disclosed by her even to her husband Tilakram",
(PW5). Therefore, as already discussed, her this statement, being unnatural, is not acceptable. The entire evidence of the prosecution shows that few",
days prior to the incident, at the time of Dussehra festival, both the Appellant and the deceased had visited maternal house of the deceased on the",
motorcycle of the Appellant. At that time, the motorcycle of the Appellant had met with an accident and it had severely got damaged. For repairing of",
his motorcycle, the Appellant's demand for money or jewellery was from his wife (the deceased) and on her refusal, a quarrel had taken place",
between them. Later on, the motorcycle of the Appellant was got repaired by Tikaram (PW3), maternal uncle of the deceased and both the Appellant",
and the deceased had returned on the said motorcycle. Even if any demand for repairing of his motorcycle was made by the Appellant from his wife,
(the deceased), this cannot be said to be a demand for dowry. Apart from this, it is also established that thereafter the motorcycle of the Appellant",
was got repaired by Tikaram (PW3), maternal uncle of the deceased and both the Appellant and the deceased had returned on the said motorcycle.",
Thus, thereafter, there was no demand in existence.",
From the aforestated appreciation of evidence on record, I find that the material ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, i.e.,",
demand for dowry and soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry are missing in the case in,
hand. Hence, the conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable.",
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge",
framed against him. He is reported to be in jail. If he is not required in any other case, he be set at liberty forthwith.",
Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,