1 2025:CGHC:58326-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 844 of 2023 1 - Chandrahash Sahu @ Pappu S/o Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Junwani, Police Station Bhakhara, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Maheshwari Bai W/o Late Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Junwani, Police Station Bhakhara, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Peman Kumar Sahu S/o Late Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Junwani, Police Station Bhakhara, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Hameshwari Sahu W/o Peman Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Junwani, Police Station Bhakhara, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bhakhara, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. and Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate (for objector) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.04 17:07:09 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.12.2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘CrPC’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), District- Dhamtari (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 40/2019, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years (each). 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased, Smt. Indu Sahu, was married to accused Chandrahas Sahu on 05.03.2016 as per social customs. After the marriage, the deceased resided at her matrimonial home in Village- Junwani, Police Station- Bhakhara, District- Dhamtari. During the subsistence of marriage, the deceased was allegedly subjected to continuous physical and mental harassment by her husband- Chandrahas Sahu, mother- in-law- Maheshwari Bai, brother-in-law- Peman Sahu and sister- in-law- Hameshwari Sahu. The prosecution asserts that the accused persons repeatedly taunted the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry, assaulted and abused her, and persistently 3 demanded money from her parental home. It is stated that, on one occasion, on 31.01.2018, the father of the deceased, Kriparam Sahu, arranged Rs. 4,00,000/- by obtaining a loan from Shriram Finance and handed it over to accused Chandrahas Sahu, yet the harassment allegedly continued unabated. 3. The prosecution further alleges that from 05.03.2016 to 21.05.2019, in furtherance of their common intention, the accused persons continued to torture the deceased, which caused her severe emotional distress. The deceased is said to have regularly informed her parents and siblings over telephone that her husband and in-laws were subjecting her to cruelty in connection with dowry. Troubled by the persistent harassment, the deceased allegedly consumed a poisonous substance before 10:30 PM on 21.05.2019. She was taken to Christian Hospital, Dhamtari, where she died around 10:00 PM. As the death occurred within seven years of marriage and under suspicious circumstances, the matter was investigated as a dowry death. 4. Upon completion of investigation, the police found prima facie involvement of accused Chandrahas Sahu, Maheshwari Bai, Peman Sahu and Hameshwari Sahu, and accordingly filed a charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagari. The matter was later committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was received on 08.08.2019 for trial. 5. Charges under Sections 304B/34 IPC and, in the alternative, 4 Section 302/34 IPC were framed against the accused persons. The accused denied all allegations and claimed trial. In their examination under Section 313 CrPC, they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and asserted false implication. The defence examined Rajendra Sahu (DW-01) and the accused Chandrahas Sahu (DW-02) in support of their plea of innocence. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirty-two witnesses (P.W.-1 to P.W.-32) and exhibited 49 documents. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 22.03.2025 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellants. 7. Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that there is no specific or cogent allegation of demand of dowry made soon before the death of the deceased. The marriage between the deceased and appellant – Chandrahash Sahu was solemnized on 05.03.2016, and the alleged incident occurred on 21.05.2019. During this intervening period, neither the deceased nor her parents lodged any complaint or FIR alleging cruelty or demand of dowry. It is further submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the 5 conviction of the appellants rests merely on suspicion. The allegations levelled against the appellants are general and omnibus in nature, without any specific details regarding the nature or occasion of the alleged demand of dowry. She further submits that the impugned judgment suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities, as the learned trial Court convicted the appellants on the basis of hearsay, contradictory and unreliable evidence, without any legally admissible material to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. It is argued that the prosecution witnesses treated as star witnesses—PW-01 Mahadev Gajpal, PW-02 Dubey Singh, PW-16 Pooja Sahu, PW- 22 Kuntibai, and PW-23 Kriparam—categorically admitted in their cross-examination that their statements regarding dowry demand and harassment were purely hearsay, yet the trial Court erroneously relied upon them in utter disregard of the settled law that hearsay evidence cannot form the basis of conviction. Furthermore, the closest family members of the deceased—PW- 16 (sister), PW-22 (mother), and PW-23 (father)—admitted that the marital relations between the deceased and the accused were cordial, the in-laws behaved well, and no complaint of dowry harassment was ever made during the lifetime of the deceased. Even the alleged payment of Rs.4,00,000/- is wholly unproved, as no loan documents, receipts, bank statements or independent witnesses were produced. Prosecution witnesses also admitted that no complaint was ever made to the village, community or 6 police regarding any dowry demand, making the allegations after the death clearly an afterthought. The medical evidence also disproves the allegation of cruelty, as PW-17, the Medical Officer, opined that the death was suicidal and that no external injuries or signs of assault were found. 8. It is further submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the most crucial ingredient of “cruelty or harassment soon before death,” which is mandatory for conviction under Section 304-B IPC, as reinforced in Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 417. Neither any independent witness nor any neighbour has supported the prosecution case, and the electronic/audio evidence (Article-01 CD) is inadmissible due to absence of a valid certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and lack of verification regarding ownership of the mobile number, as admitted by PW-29, the Nodal Officer. Despite these glaring deficiencies, the Trial Court misread evidence and based its findings (particularly in paras 69–71) on conjectures, assumptions, vague and omnibus statements, and ignored material contradictions. It is argued that the presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act cannot be invoked in absence of legally proved harassment for dowry, and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The cumulative effect of unrebutted contradictions, inadmissible hearsay, lack of proof of dowry demand, absence of “soon before death,” cordial relations, and absence of documentary evidence 7 completely demolishes the prosecution case, rendering the conviction unsustainable and entitling the appellants to acquittal by benefit of doubt. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chanchal Kumari v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1985 SCC OnLine SC 368, wherein it has been held as under: "4. The evidence of Gulshan Rai (PW 2), on which the prosecution relied, was that he had visited his sister Usha, CW 1, and saw appellants Chanchal and Draupadi beating the deceased and heard her cries at 9.30 p.m. But Gulshan Rai did not give this information to the police or anybody and spoke regarding this incident for the first time only one and a half months after the occurrence. In these circumstances, we have serious doubts about the truth of his statement. This is all the main evidence against the appellants and we are convinced that the evidence is not sufficient to prove the charges against the appellants. Suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof." 10. Reliance is also placed in the matter of Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 417, wherein Hon'ble Apex court held as under: “5. We have given our attention and consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Normally this Court will be slow and reluctant, as it ought to be, to upset the order of conviction of the 8 trial court as confirmed by the High Court appreciating the evidence placed on record. But in cases where both the courts concurrently recorded a finding that the accused was guilty of an offence in the absence of evidence satisfying the necessary ingredients of an offence, in other words, when no offence was made out, it becomes necessary to disturb such an order of conviction and sentence to meet the demand of justice. In order to convict an accused for an offence under Section 304-B IPC, the following essentials must be satisfied: (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. 6. 6. It is only when the aforementioned ingredients are established by acceptable evidence such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or his relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. It may be noticed that punishment for the offence of dowry death under Section 304-B is imprisonment of not less than 7 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life. Unlike under Section 498-A IPC, husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty shall be liable for imprisonment for a 9 term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Normally, in a criminal case the accused can be punished for an offence on establishment of commission of that offence on the basis of evidence, maybe direct or circumstantial or both. But in case of an offence under Section 304-B IPC, an exception is made by deeming provision as to nature of death as "doury death" and that the husband or his relative, as the case may be, is deemed to have cused 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 Hence, there is need for greater care and caution, that too having regard to the gravity of the punishment prescribed for the said offence, in scrutinizing the evidence and in arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the abovementioned ingredients of the offence are proved by the prosecution. In the case on hand, the learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the first two ingredients mentioned above are satisfied. 7. We have now to see whether the remaining two ingredients are also satisfied looking to the evidence on record. It is unfortunate that the High Court in the first appeal, as expected of it, did not analyse, evaluate and scrutinize the evidence for reappraisal. The High Court in a summary way without discussing the oral evidence of PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 mainly on the basis of which the appellant was convicted, has stated that the oral evidence of these three witnesses is consistent with the contents of the letter Ext. P-9. The High Court also observed that the immediate cause for Suman to bring an end to her life was the 10 conduct of the husband in bringing girls of doubtful character to his house. Having said so, the High Court did not discuss and record reasons as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty for and in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. It simply concluded that it had been proved that the accused demanded an amount of Rs 20,000 as dowry from the parents of Suman through her and subjected her to mental cruelty in connection with that demand. When there was serious challenge as to the demand of an amount of Rs 20,000 as dowry without discussing the evidence on this point such as whether the parents of the deceased were capable of arranging for Rs 20,000 and whether there was the so-called demand soon before the death of Suman was proved or not, the High Court should not have concluded that Suman was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry and that too when there was no evidence to support the said conclusion which resulted in grave consequences. The High Court has simply confirmed the finding of the trial court holding the appellant guilty of the offence. It is under these circumstances; it has become necessary for us to look at the material and relevant evidence brought on record." 11. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and contends that there is ample and sufficient evidence on record to establish the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court, upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary 11 evidence, has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are well reasoned and based on due consideration of the material available on record. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the objector submits that the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned, lawful, and evidence-based judgment dated 22.03.2023 convicting the appellants under Section 304-B/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It is submitted that the learned trial Court, after an exhaustive appreciation of the testimonies of 32 prosecution witnesses, including the categorical medical evidence of Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey (PW-17), has rightly concluded that the deceased Indu Sahu was subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment for bringing insufficient dowry. The evidence clearly establishes that on 31.01.2018, the father of the deceased was compelled to pay Rs.4,00,000/- after mortgaging his tractor to meet the unlawful demands of the appellants, yet the harassment unabatedly continued, ultimately driving the deceased to consume poison on 21.05.2019, resulting in her death at Masihi Hospital, Dhamtari. The chain of circumstances, as carefully analysed by the trial Court in paragraph 75 of the impugned judgment, is complete, consistent, and fully connects the appellants with the commission 12 of the offence, leaving no reasonable doubt regarding their culpability. 13. He further submitted that the appellants have failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the findings of the trial Court that may justify suspension of sentence at the appellate stage. The objector submits that the offence alleged is of an extremely serious nature, being a dowry death which has become alarmingly rampant in society and requires strict deterrence. Convicting the appellants would not only send a wrong message to society but also create the real and imminent possibility of the appellants influencing or intimidating witnesses and manipulating the course of justice. The defence has not been able to rebut any of the material findings or evidence that were duly proved during trial, nor have they shown any exceptional circumstances warranting deviation from the settled legal principle that in dowry death cases, suspension of sentence is not to be granted as a matter of routine. Hence, in the considered submission of the objector, the application seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice. 14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 15. The first question for consideration would be, Whether the death 13 of the deceased was an ‘unnatural death occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances’ within seven years of marriage? 16. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased- Indu Sahu was married to the appellant- Chandrahas Sahu on 05.03.2016 according to social customs and subsequently resided with her husband and in-laws at Junwani village. The death occurred on 21.05.2019, clearly within seven years of marriage, satisfying the temporal requirement under Section 304B IPC. 17. The postmortem report (Ex.P-12) conducted by Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey (PW-17) confirmed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to pesticide ingestion. External and internal examination revealed antemortem injury marks, bandage marks on the ankles, erythema on the upper limbs, and presence of foam in the mouth and esophagus, indicating distress prior to death. The clothes and viscera of the deceased were seized, and forensic analysis (Ex.P.46) confirmed the presence of organophosphorus insecticide Chlorpyrifos, corroborating the suicidal cause of death. The medical evidence regarding the cause and nature of death was unchallenged during cross-examination, lending it significant weight. 18. The deceased’s family (PW-23- Kriparam Sahu, PW-22- Kunti Bai Sahu, PW-16- Pooja Sahu, PW-28- Deepak Kumar Sahu) testified that she faced harassment and emotional distress from the husband and in-laws over dowry demands. Instances of 14 counselling by community members including Mahadev Gajpal (PW-1), Dubey Singh (PW-2), Punitram Sahu (PW-3), and Domeram Sahu (PW-25) were conducted four to five months prior to the incident to advise the accused regarding his conduct. Seizures of articles allegedly given as dowry, including jewellery and household items, were documented (Ex.P.25, Ex.P.29, Ex.P.14) and examined without contradiction by defence. 19. Evidence regarding harassment by in-laws apart from the husband remained uncorroborated. Mobile call records and CD conversations (Ex.P.03, Ex.P.08, Ex.P.33-36, Ex.P.37) established communication between the deceased and her family, corroborating the testimonies of distress and harassment. Despite minor discrepancies regarding the registered ownership of the mobile number, the content of the conversations was accepted as evidence of harassment. 20. Based on the evidence of medical witness PW-17 and corroborating statements of PW-23, PW-22, PW-16, PW-28, and PW-26, it is established that the deceased Indu Sahu died unnaturally due to ingestion of pesticide within seven years of marriage. The death thus qualifies as an ‘unnatural death occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances,’ satisfying the statutory requirement under Section 304B IPC. While sufficient evidence exists against the husband, evidence against the other accused in-laws is inadequate. 15 21. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellants are liable to be punished under Section 304-B/34 of the IPC ? 22. In this regard, Kuntibai Sahu (PW-22), the mother of the deceased, testified in detail about the consistent harassment faced by her daughter Indu at the hands of the accused Chandrahas Sahu and his family. She stated that her daughter often reported verbal abuse, intimidation, and repeated threats, particularly during visits to the parental home for festivals or local functions. Kuntibai deposed that the accused once told Indu, to come back home to Junwani and then see what will happen with her after a dispute, which clearly demonstrated a direct threat and the creation of fear. Her testimony highlights that although the deceased was occasionally taken care of materially, the mental cruelty persisted, especially regarding alleged dowry-related demands. The witness’s statements were consistent in cross- examination, and no contradictions were elicited by the defense. Her testimony corroborated by other family members forms a core part of the prosecution’s case, showing sustained harassment. 23. Kriparam Sahu (PW-23) the father of the deceased, provided substantial oral evidence of dowry harassment and torture inflicted on Indu. He stated that from the very start of the marriage, the accused repeatedly demanded money, pressured the deceased to bring property, and verbally abused her, claiming 16 she had brought insufficient dowry. Kriparam Sahu also testified regarding a financial transaction where he had taken a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs for the construction of the marital house at the request of accused Chandrahas, indicating financial pressure and exploitation of parental resources. His evidence was corroborated by documentary proof in the form of the loan receipt (Exhibit X – loan document) and further supported by other witnesses, including Pooja Sahu (PW-16). His testimony established that the deceased was under prolonged mental and financial strain, directly linking the accused’s actions to her distress. 24. Pooja Sahu (PW-16), sister of the deceased deposed that she had spoken to the deceased over the phone and in person on multiple occasions and was made aware of the physical and mental harassment inflicted by Chandrahas and other accused. She confirmed that the deceased complained about repeated demands for money and dowry, threats, and abuse whenever she visited her parental home. Pooja’s testimony highlighted that the deceased was increasingly distressed and emotionally affected by this sustained cruelty, which played a significant role in the eventual suicide. Pooja also corroborated the family narrative that the deceased refrained from lodging complaints due to fear of disturbing her marital relationship. 25. Deepak Kumar Sahu (PW-28), brother of the deceased provided evidence regarding the ongoing harassment and dowry-related 17 demands. He stated that he was present during conversations where the deceased complained of being pressured to bring money from her parental home and of verbal and physical abuse by the accused. His testimony confirmed the pattern of cruelty and harassment, establishing continuity and the fact that the deceased was subject to sustained mental stress over time. His statements were consistent with those of Kriparam Sahu and Kuntibai Sahu, thereby reinforcing the prosecution’s case that dowry harassment was a cause of the deceased’s distress. 26. Mahadev Gajpal (PW-1) testified about observing the deceased’s condition and corroborated the claims of harassment and abuse by the accused. He confirmed that the accused’s behavior created a hostile environment for Indu, contributing to her deteriorating mental state. His evidence further supported the assertion that the deceased’s death was not due to natural causes but resulted from prolonged cruelty, consistent with the definition of dowry death under Section 304B IPC. 27. Chandrahas Sahu (DW-2) the accused in his testimony denied any dowry harassment and claimed to have provided for Indu’s basic needs, including education, medical care, and general comfort. However, his statements were consistently refuted by the testimony of multiple witnesses, including family members, who highlighted repeated instances of mental cruelty and threats. His defense that material care absolves him of mental cruelty was not 18 accepted, as Indian law recognizes that dowry-related harassment and emotional torture constitute cruelty even when material needs are met. 28. Domeram’s (PW-25) testimony further corroborated the accounts of dowry harassment and repeated threats made by the accused. He confirmed that Indu had expressed fear for her well-being and recounted incidents of abuse, which demonstrated a sustained pattern of cruelty and contributed to her suicidal act. 29. Jyoti Masiyare (PW-27)(Tehsildar) conducted the Panchanama (Ex.P-24) after the deceased’s death. While the inquest did not explicitly mention dowry harassment, PW-27 confirmed that statements regarding cruelty and harassment were not taken at that time. The absence of prior complaints does not negate the fact of harassment, as family members were reluctant to involve authorities to avoid disrupting marital relations. The Panchanama provided an official record of the deceased’s body inspection, postmortem recommendation (Ex.P-12), and subsequent investigation, validating the sequence of events leading to her death. 30. The post-mortem report (Ex.P-12) prepared by Dr. Vinod Pandey confirmed injuries on the deceased consistent with prior physical abuse. This medical evidence corroborates oral testimonies regarding sustained harassment and physical cruelty, supporting the conclusion that her death was caused under unnatural 19 circumstances, influenced by dowry-related harassment. 31. On a careful consideration of the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased, Indu Sahu, faced consistent harassment and emotional cruelty at the hands of her husband, appellant Chandrahas Sahu. The testimonies of PW-22 (Kuntibai Sahu), PW-23 (Kriparam Sahu), PW-16 (Pooja Sahu), and PW-28 (Deepak Kumar Sahu) demonstrate that the appellant repeatedly demanded money and property, verbally abused the deceased, and threatened her life, particularly during disputes when she visited her parental home. 32. The post-mortem report (Ex.P-12) prepared by PW-17 (Dr. Vinod Pandey) confirms that the cause of death was ingestion of pesticide, with injuries consistent with prior physical abuse. Forensic evidence (Ex.P.46) and the seizure of clothes and viscera corroborate the oral testimonies, establishing that the deceased died under unnatural circumstances caused by sustained cruelty. 33. Other witnesses such as PW-1 (Mahadev Gajpal), PW-2 (Dubey Singh), PW-3 (Punitram Sahu), PW-25 (Domeram Sahu), and PW-27 (Tehsildar Jyoti Masiyare) provide further support for the assertion that the deceased suffered repeated harassment and threats from the appellant. While the Tehsildar confirmed that the Panchanama (Ex.P-24) did not record statements of dowry harassment, the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the 20 Indian Evidence Act validates reliance on consistent family testimonies and circumstantial evidence to establish cruelty leading to death. 34. The defence of appellant No.1, that material care and provision for the deceased’s medical, educational, and daily needs absolve him of cruelty, is rejected. Indian jurisprudence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC recognizes that dowry-related harassment and mental torture constitute cruelty, even if material requirements are met. The totality of evidence establishes that appellant No.1’s actions directly contributed to the mental distress and suicidal act of the deceased. 35. As regards the other accused, including in-laws, it is noted that there is insufficient evidence to establish active participation or direct harassment. The prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that they were involved in dowry demands or mental cruelty contributing to the death. The testimonies and documentary evidence focus primarily on the conduct of appellant No.1 i.e. husband of the deceased. No credible material implicates the other accused in acts of harassment that could have led to the suicide. 36. The last question for consideration before this Court is whether the prosecution has successfully proved that all the appellants collectively subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment related to dowry, thereby causing her death, and whether they are 21 liable to be convicted under Sections 304B/34 IPC? 37. Provision of Section 304-B of IPC is also extracted below for ready reference. “304B. Dowry death. -- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown 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, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” The above provision was inserted by Act 43 of 1986 and came into force with effect from 19.11.1986. 38. In order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC, the following essentials must be satisfied- • The death of a woman should be caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. 22 • Such death should have occurred within seven years of the marriage. • Soon before the death of deceased, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her Husband or any relative of her Husband. • Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. Thus, if the aforesaid ingredients are established by the prosecution by leading appropriate reliable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and the Court shall presume and it shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved by the accused. 39. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks about presumption as to dowry death, which reads as under:- "113B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." 40. The aforesaid provision shows that if the woman has been subjected to cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the IPC, the 23 court may presume that such person has caused dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides as under:- S.2 Definition of "dowry". In this Act," dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- a. by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or b. by the parents of either party to a marriage or by a other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or after the marriage us consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies." 41. To attract the provisions of Section 304B of the IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence, which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty or harassment "for, or in connection with the demand for dowry". The expression "soon before her death" used in Section 304B of the IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. 42. In the matter of Appasaheb and another v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721, it has been held by the Supreme Court at paras 9 to 11 as under:- “9. Two essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, apart from others, are (i) death of woman is caused 24 by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, and (ii) woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for “dowry”. The explanation appended to sub section (1) of Section 304-B IPC says that “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 10. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act reads as under: “2. Definition of ‘dowry’.- In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly. (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.” 11. In view of the aforesaid definition of the word “dowry” any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving and taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with 25 the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (see Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd and Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. v. Union of India). A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for making some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for 'dowry' as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.” 43. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 11 SCC 397, while considering the term "soon before her death", has held that term of the period which can come within the term "soon before her death" is to be 26 determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question and there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. It has been further held that if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. 44. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the evidence demonstrates that the deceased faced sustained mental and emotional harassment primarily from her husband, Chandrahas Sahu (DW-2), with varying involvement of other family members. Kuntibai Sahu (PW-22) testified in detail that her daughter repeatedly complained of verbal abuse, threats, and intimidation from the accused, particularly during visits to her parental home for festivals and local functions. She stated that Chandrahas Sahu had once threatened Indu to return to Junwani village, creating a climate of fear and mental cruelty. Her testimony, corroborated by other family members, including Kriparam Sahu (PW-23), Pooja Sahu (PW-16), and Deepak Kumar Sahu (PW-28), was consistent and not refuted in cross-examination, forming a core part of the prosecution’s evidence of sustained harassment. 27 45. Kriparam Sahu (PW-23) provided substantial evidence regarding financial and mental harassment. He stated that the accused repeatedly demanded money and property, claiming that the dowry brought by Indu was insufficient. He also explained that he had taken a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs for constructing the marital house at the request of Chandrahas Sahu, which is corroborated by the loan receipt (Ex.P.25). This financial pressure, combined with repeated verbal abuse, established a continuous pattern of cruelty. His testimony was further supported by Pooja Sahu (PW- 16) and Deepak Kumar Sahu (PW-28), confirming the long- standing harassment inflicted on the deceased. 46. Pooja Sahu (PW-16) deposed that through personal interactions and phone conversations, she was aware of repeated abuse and threats directed at Indu, particularly regarding dowry and financial matters. She highlighted that Indu refrained from approaching authorities due to fear of disturbing her marital relationship. Deepak Kumar Sahu (PW-28) corroborated these claims, stating that he witnessed discussions where the deceased was pressured to bring money from her parental home and verbally abused. Both witnesses emphasized the mental and emotional impact on the deceased, demonstrating that such harassment was ongoing and severe. 47. Mahadev Gajpal (PW-1) and Domeram (PW-25) further corroborated the accounts of harassment. PW-1 observed the 28 condition of the deceased and confirmed that the accused’s behavior created a hostile and stressful environment for her. PW- 25 stated that Indu had expressed fear for her safety and recounted incidents of abuse, reinforcing the narrative of continuous cruelty. Mobile call records and CDs (Ex.P.03, Ex.P.08, Ex.P.33-36, Ex.P.37) showed regular communication between the deceased and her family, corroborating the testimonies of harassment and dowry demands. 48. Jyoti Masiyare (PW-27), the Tehsildar, conducted the Panchanama (Ex.P.24) after the deceased’s death. While the inquest did not explicitly mention dowry harassment, PW-27 confirmed that statements regarding cruelty and harassment were not taken at that time. The absence of prior complaints does not negate the fact of harassment, as the deceased’s family refrained from involving authorities to avoid disrupting marital relations. The post-mortem report (Ex.P.12) prepared by Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey (PW-17) confirmed injuries on the deceased consistent with prior physical abuse and established asphyxia due to pesticide ingestion, corroborating the oral testimonies regarding sustained harassment and linking it to the unnatural death of Indu Sahu. 49. Chandrahas Sahu (DW-2) denied any dowry harassment and claimed to have provided for Indu’s basic needs. However, his defense was consistently refuted by multiple witnesses (PW-22, 29 PW-23, PW-16, PW-28, PW-1, PW-25), highlighting repeated mental cruelty and threats, which were not negated by material provision alone. Evidence regarding the involvement of other accused in-laws did not establish a direct role in the harassment or cruelty, their actions were limited and insufficient to prove complicity under Section 304B IPC. 50. On evaluating the evidence and exhibits, it is clear that Chandrahas Sahu @ Pappu – appellant No.1 subjected the deceased Indu Sahu to continuous cruelty and harassment, both mental and financial, which contributed to her suicidal death. The prosecution has successfully proved the charge against him under Sections 304B/34 IPC. Conversely, the prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence to hold the other appellants guilty, their involvement in dowry harassment or in causing the death of the deceased is not established beyond reasonable doubt. 51. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant No.1- Chandrahas Sahu. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellant No.1-Chandrahas Sahu is hereby upheld. 52. So far as appellant No.2- Maheshwari Bai, appellant No.3- Preman Kumar Sahu and appellant No.4- Hameshwari Sahu are concerned, we are of the considered opinion that benefit of doubt ought to have given to the said appellants by the learned trial 30 Court, but by convicting them under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for 7 years, the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality. 53. As a result, appellant No.2- Maheshwari Bai, appellant No.3- Preman Kumar Sahu and appellant No.4- Hameshwari Sahu are acquitted of the charges levelled against them by giving the benefit of doubt. It is stated that the said appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. However, their bail bonds shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of Section 437- A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), 54. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid factual aspects, the appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 55. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant No.1- Chandrahas Sahu @ Pappu is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 56. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant- Chandrahas Sahu @ Pappu is undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the Appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 31 57. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet