1 2025:CGHC:56019-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 373 of 2023 Shadhu Banjare S/o Guhira Banjare, aged about 28 years R/o Village Thakurdera P.S. Jarhagaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) --- Appellant versus The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Deepika District Korba (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 375 of 2023 Ghuhira Banjare S/o Late Laindas Banjare, aged about 71 years Resident Of Village Thakurdera P.S. Jarhagaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Deepika District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18 . 11 .202 5 1. Since the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and common impugned judgment, this Court is disposing of the same by a common judgment. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. Both these criminal appeals filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘CrPC’) are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2021, whereby though both appellants have been convicted under Section 304-B/34 of IPC, but appellant – Shadhu Banjare (in CRA No. 373/2023 husband of the deceased) has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months additional RI whereas appellant – Ghuhira Banjare (in CRA No. 375 of 2023 father-in-law of the deceased) has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months additional RI. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 22.11.2019, Raj Kumar Sen, ward boy of CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, lodged a report at the police outpost CIMS Bilaspur stating that the death of the deceased Sarojini Banjare, wife of Sadhu Banjare, age 24 years, resident of Shakti Nagar, was due to burning. Since the deceased was a newly married woman, the inquest proceedings were conducted by the Executive Magistrate, Bilaspur vide Ex.P-2 after giving notice to witnesses vide Ex.P-1 and the post-mortem examination of the deceased's body was conducted by a team of doctors, who opined that cause of death is due to extensive burn injury & its complications and the postmortem report was 3 obtained vide Ex.P-3. Merg No. 71/2019 has been registered at Police Station, Dipika vide Ex.P-12. Clothes, burnt hair and skin of the deceased were seized as per sealed Ex.P-13, articles were seized from the room of the deceased as per Ex.P. 18, site plan was prepared, bed head tickets were recovered, wedding card article A-11 was seized, chemical test report of the seized articles Ex.P. 37, 38 and 39 were obtained. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. On finding that the deceased died due to burning and suicide by burning after being fed up with dowry harassment, an FIR bearing Crime No. 21/2020 was registered at Dikipa Police Station on 09.02.2020 and the accused/appellants were arrested. After completing the necessary investigation, charge sheet was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora on 09.09.2020. Thereafter, the case was submitted in the Court of Sessions Judge, Korba on 13.01.2021. The case was received by the Sessions Court, Korba on 27.01.2021, from where the case was received by the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora for trial on 30.01.2021. 4. When the charges were framed against the accused/appellants under Sections 304-B/34 and 306/34 of IPC and in alternative under Section 302 of IPC and the same were read over and explained to them, the accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined nineteen witnesses (P.W.-1 to P.W.-25) and exhibited 39 documents. After 4 the closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they declared themselves as innocent and that they had been falsely implicated. They have deposed a defence witness in their defece. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 28.01.2023 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, these two criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused/appellants. 6. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, 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 – Shadhu Banjare was solemnized on 15.05.2018, and the alleged incident occurred on 22.11.2019. 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 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. He would submit that the deceased was burnt in the house of her husband situated at 5 village Dipika and the appellant – Ghuhira, who is father-in-law of the deceased was residing separately from them which is evident from the evidence of Saukhilal (PW-1), therefore, his conviction and sentence is unsustainable. He would further submit that so far as conviction and sentence of appellant – Shadhu Banjare is concerned, at the time of incident, the appellant - Shadhu Banjare (husband of the deceased) was not present in the home and he has gone to duty, which is evident from the evidence of Smt. Pusaiyya Bai Banjare (PW-6), sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the appellant Shadhu Banjare. Further from the evidence of Sarita Rathore (PW-20), it is quite clear that the deceased herself has set fire to scare her husband, but she had suffered serious burns, which is also proved by postmortem report that the death was suicidal in nature and as such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellants is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. He lastly submits that the impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant Shadhu Banjare is excessive and too harsh, which cannot be sustainable in view of facts and circumstances as well as evidence available on record, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed or he may sentenced for lesser punishment. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer 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 6 reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court, upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary 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. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased Sarojini Banjare was homicidal or suicidal in nature ? 10. The trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statements of Dr.R.K. Markam (PW-11) and Dr. Rani Keshari (PW-19), who had conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased Sarojini Banjare and further relying upon the postmortem reports Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11 given by them, observed that it is not clear whether the death of the deceased was homicidal, suicidal or accidental in nature. However, their evidence does not refute the fact that 97 percent of the body of the deceased Sarojini Banjare was burnt and her death was due to the injuries and complications arising out of the excessive burns, further considering the fact that no antemorterm injuries were found over 7 the dead body of the deceased by the said doctors, as such, has come to the conclusion that death of deceased was suicidal in nature. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that cause of death of deceased Sarojini Banjare is due to extensive burn injury & its complications and it is suicidal in nature is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm the said finding. 12. 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 ? 13. In this regard, the deceased's father, Saukhilal (PW-01), stated that he recognized the accused and that the deceased, Sarojini, was his youngest daughter who was married to the accused, Sadhu Banjare, of village Thakurdera, Police Station Jarhagaon, on May 15, 2018, in accordance with social customs. It has also been stated that after marriage, the deceased lived at her in-laws' village, Thakurdera, for approximately one and a half months, where her mother-in-law, her father-in-law, brother-in-law Man Singh, and her husband, Sadhu Banjare, harassed her in the name of dowry. This witness further stated that the accused, 8 Sadhu Banjare, lived in Shakti Nagar, Dipka, and worked as a vehicle belt maker. This witness also stated that his daughter Sarojini's family (in-laws) demanded a motorcycle from him and demanded 80,000 for not giving the motorcycle. When he ₹ refused, the accused, Sadhu Banjare, would beat her, and his in- laws and brother-in-law also used to abuse her. This witness also stated that four months after the marriage, the accused, Ghuhira Banjare (the deceased's father-in-law) and Sadhu Banjare (the deceased's husband), came to his home in Sendri (the deceased's maternal home) to release his daughter Sarojini, saying, "Give us the motorcycle or 80,000, or else don't come." ₹ This witness stated that after that, his daughter, the deceased, stayed at his house for approximately 15 days. After that, this witness, himself and his wife, took their daughter Sarojini to her in-laws' house. At that time, this witness told the accused Ghuhira Banjare, to forgive whatever mistake she had made and to keep his daughter well in his home. This witness says that about a month later, the accused again started a fight and assault on his daughter and when they started doing this, she came to his house and told him that the accused beat and abused her. 14. The deceased's father (PW1) further stated that after staying for one night, his son Vikas Patre (PW4) went to Dipka to bring the deceased Sarojini to her in-laws' house. As soon as his son reached there with his daughter, the accused Sadhu Banjare assaulted the deceased Sarojini in front of Vikas Patre. This 9 witness says that his son Vikas told him about the above incident when he returned. 15. Saukhilal (PW1) further stated that on 22.11.2019, at 7:00 a.m., accused Sadhu Banjare called this witness's son, Subhash (PW3), and said, "Will your sister live today, or will he live today?" On the same date, accused Sadhu Banjare and the deceased's sister-in-law, Pushpa Bai alias Pusaiya Bai, set his daughter Sarojini on fire. This witness also stated that when his son, Vikas, returned home, he was told that his brother-in-law, Sadhu Banjare, had called and threatened him. This witness then called his daughter on 22.11.2019 at 9:00 a.m., where the deceased's sister-in-law answered the phone and said, "Your daughter Sarojini has consumed petrol and is writhing in pain." When this witness told her, make her talk to him, then she said that Sarojini will not be able to talk. After this the sister-in-law of the deceased did not give him any answer. This witness further stated that on the same day at 3.00 pm he himself called his son-in-law accused Sadhu and he told that his daughter Sarojini has been burnt in a fire and is seriously injured. After that accused Sadhu Banjare told that on the same day at 5.15 pm he has brought the deceased to CIMS Bilaspur for treatment, then this witness and 6-7 persons went to CIMS Bilaspur to see Sarojini. The deceased's father PW-1 also stated that when he went there he saw that his daughter Sarojini was badly burnt. When he asked her how she got burnt, she told that Sadhu Banjare and the 10 deceased's sister-in-law Pushpabai together put a cloth in her mouth, tied her hands and legs with a rope and set her on fire. This witness has said that the police officer C.S.P. Darri and Tehsildar Madam had questioned him about the deceased's death. This witness has said that his signature was on the map Panchayatnama Ex.P.02, post-mortem report Ex.P.03, corpse panchnama Ex.P. 04. 16. The deceased's mother, Smt. Kumari Bai (PW2), also admitted to recognizing the accused and stated that Sarojini was her youngest daughter who was married to the accused Sadhu Banjare of village Thakurdera, Jarhagaon, on 15.05.2018, as per social customs. This witness stated that after the marriage , deceased lived at her in-laws' home in Thakurdera for approximately one and a half to two months with her mother-in- law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, and husband, Sadhu Banjare. During that time, the accused, Sadhu Banjare, used to beat her daughter, Sarojini. This witness further stated in paragraph 2 that the accused claimed they would not keep her daughter, and that her son-in-law, accused Sadhu Banjare, would demand a motorcycle or pay 80,000 to buy a car. This witness also stated ₹ that after witnessing the assault, her daughter reported the matter to the police station, then to the Women's Counseling Center, and also filed a maintenance application with the Family Court, Bilaspur. This witness further stated that after the case was heard at the Women's Counseling Center, her daughter agreed to leave 11 with her husband. Her daughter and son-in-law, accused Sadhu Banjare, stayed together for a few days in Shakti Nagar, Dipka, after which the deceased Sarojini Banjare was again taken to Thakurdera where her daughter was not given food by her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law and was harassing her, hence she came to her parents' house. 17. The deceased's mother, PW2, further stated that she kept the deceased with her for 10-12 days and then sent her son to take her daughter to her son-in-law, where her son-in-law, accused Sadhu Banjare, assaulted her daughter, Sarojini, in front of her son. This witness also stated that she had advised her daughter Sarojini to remain calm and composed. Ten to twelve days later, her daughter was burned. 18. The deceased's brother, Subhash Kumar Patre (PW3), also stated that he knew the accused and stated that the deceased was his youngest sister, who was married to the accused, Sadhu Banjare of village Thakurdera, police station Jarhagaon, as per social customs on 14-15 May 2018. This witness also states that after marriage, the deceased, Sarojini, stayed at her in-laws' house in Thakurdera for about 3-4 months. Thereafter, Sadhu Banjare, his sister-in-law, Pusaiybai, and brother-in-law, Man Singh, demanded a motorcycle from her as dowry and demanded Rs. 80,000/- for not giving the motorcycle. This witness also says that for not giving the motorcycle or Rs. 80,000/-, the accused Sadhu Banjare used to harass the deceased Sarojini by beating 12 her. After that, her sister Sarojini was taken to her house by her husband Sadhu Banjare and her father-in-law. Then this witness along with her parents took her sister Sarojini to Koni police station to lodge a report. This witness also says that after that they had filed a complaint in the Family Court Bilaspur and Women's Counseling Center Bilaspur. At the Women's Counseling Center Bilaspur, both the parties were counseled and a mutual reconciliation was made. After that, her sister Sarojini went to her in-laws' village Thakurdera and later she came to Dipka. This witness also says that later, when a fight broke out again, the accused Sadhu Banjare brought his sister to his house and left her there. After that, the deceased Sarojini stayed at her maternal home for two-three days. Then, when this witness's younger brother Vikas (PW-4) went to take his sister Sarojini to Dipka to his son-in-law Sadhu Banjare's house, Sadhu Banjare beat her up badly in front of his brother Vikas Patre and threatened to burn the brother and sister in the room. After that, his brother Vikas returned home the same day. This witness further stated that on 22.11.19 at 7.00 am, the accused Sadhu Banjare called and threatened that either he would stay today or his sister would stay today. On this, Sadhu Banjare said that he should call another number, then this witness disconnected the phone. This witness also says that later his younger brother called Sadhu Banjare but he did not pick up the phone. After that her father called Sadhu Banjare but Pusaiya Bai picked up the 13 phone and told him that your daughter Sarojini is fluttering after drinking petrol. After that she disconnected the phone. This witness's father told the accused Sadhu Banjare that you know what you have done to his daughter. Then on the same day the accused Sadhuram called and told this witness's father that Sarojini was completely burnt and they were taking her to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for treatment. Then the family members of the deceased went to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur to see her where this witness saw that his sister Sarojini was completely burnt and her body was lying on the ground and she was still breathing. Family members asked Sarojini what had happened and how it had happened, and she said, "Her husband, Sadhu Banjare, and Pusaiya Bai stuffed a cloth in her mouth, tied her legs, poured petrol on her, and set her on fire." 19. Prosecution witness Vikas Patre, the victim's brother (PW4), also admitted knowing the accused and stated that his sister Sarojini was married to the accused, Sadhu Banjare. This witness stated that the incident occurred approximately one year prior to his testimony before the Court on 09.11.2021. He stated that he had gone to his sister Sarojini's brother-in-law's house in Shakti Nagar, Dipka, at 1:30-2:00 p.m. When he arrived with his sister, his brother-in-law, Sadhuram, assaulted her in front of him. Pusaiyya was also standing nearby, telling Sadhu Banjare to beat Sarojini further. This witness also stated that the accused, Sadhu Banjare, would tell his sister to bring a motorcycle from her 14 parents' house or bring 80,000. He would then assault her. This ₹ witness also stated that the accused, Sadhu Banjare, locked him and his sister, Sarojini, inside a room and threatened to kill them by setting them on fire. Fearing this, the witness fled to his home in Sendri. He further stated that his sister, deceased Sarojini, was burnt by the accused Sadhu Banjare and Pusaiya Bai by tying her hands and legs with a rope and stuffing a cloth in her mouth. 20. Another prosecution witness Smt. Pusiayya Bai Banjare (PW-6) has stated that she know the accused Sadhu Bajare, he is her brother-in-law. The deceased, Sarojini, was her sister-in-law. This witness further stated that about three years ago, she was married to his brother-in-law, Sadhu Banjare. After their marriage, they lived together in their own house in Dipka. About two years ago, at 11:30 a.m., while she was washing clothes in her house, she saw Sarojini's body on fire and she was screaming, then she ran into the street and shouted, "Save his sister-in-law." The neighborhood gathered. Someone called an ambulance. When the ambulance arrived, Sarojini was taken to 100 bedded Hospital, Korba. Sadhu Banjare was not at home when Sarojini's body caught fire; he had gone to work. She was the only one at home. 21. In her cross-examination, this witness has admitted that Sarojini Banjare and Sadhu Ram Banjare lived in a house separate from her. She further admitted that her husband Mansingh and she lived separately from the deceased Sarojini Banjare and Sadhu 15 Banjare and earned their livelihood. This witness also admitted that on the day of the incident, Sadhu Ram Banjare and his brother Mansingh had left for work in the morning and they were unable to reach the scene immediately when the incident occurred. Sadhu Ram Banjare and his brother Mansingh arrived at the scene after she called and informed them about the incident. She admitted that as soon as Sadhu Ram reached the scene, he immediately took Sarojini, who was in a burned condition, to the 100-bed hospital in Korba and the doctors at the 100-bed hospital reported Sarojini's condition as deteriorating. This witness also admitted that while Sarojini Banjare was burning, she was running around the courtyard, shouting "help." It is correct to say that her hands and legs were not tied. It is correct to say that Sarojini Banjare was talking before going to the Korba District Hospital. It is correct to say that when asked, Sarojini Banjare said that she had set herself on fire to scare her husband. 22. Another prosecution witness Sarita Rathore (PW-20), who is an independent witness, has stated that she recognize the accused. She lived in Shaktinagar Dipka for approximately 20 years. The incident occurred around 12 noon in the year 2019. Sarojini Banjare was burned to death. There was a commotion in the neighborhood that Sarojini, the wife of Sadhu Banjare, had been burned. People from the neighborhood went to look for her, so she also went to her house to see her. Other people were also 16 there. Sarojini was lying in her bed, burned. She went inside and saw that she was completely burned and was pleading for help. She asked Sarojini how she had been burned, and she told her that she had a physical altercation with her husband. She then asked where her husband was. She said he was a car mechanic and had gone to work in the mines. She asked why she had done this, and she said she had set a small fire to scare her husband, but she had suffered serious burns. She also said that she want to live, she want to live with her husband, please save her. 23. This witness has further stated that Sarojini's entire body was burnt, only the string of her petticoat was left. Sarojini told her that she was feeling burning sensation and asked her to cut the string. So she cut the string of Sarojini's petticoat and switched on the fan. After that she called her husband Sadhu Banjare and 112. Then Sadhu Banjare and 112 both came together. Sadhu Banjare came home and asked Sarojini why she did this, then Sarojini said that she had lit a little fire to scare him, she was saying that she want to live, please save her. Sadhu Banjara was also crying there. A 112 vehicle arrived and picked Sarojini up and took her to the hospital. Though this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, but nothing has been brought on record by putting leading questions to this witness which would lead to disbelieve her evidence. 24. The accused have produced a statement in their defense from defense witness Narendra Anant (DW-1). He stated that in the 17 year 2019, during the paddy harvest, Sarojini Banjare was on fire. He received the news and went to the spot and called Sadhu Ram Banjare. This witness stated that when he called Sadhu Ram Banjare, he was at work at Sirkimod. After this witness's call, Sadhu Ram Banjare returned to his home. This witness accompanied him inside the house where Sadhu Ram's wife, Sarojini Banjare, was found burned. When Sadhu Banjare asked her how she had burned, she told him that she had set the fire to scare him and asked him to save her. 25. Narendra Anant (DW-1) further stated that Sarojini Banjare was taken to the District Hospital, Korba, by her husband, Sadhu Banjare, and this witness himself, and from there, she was referred to the CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. This witness states that he also went to the CSIMS Hospital. At the hospital, Sarojini Banjare's father, Saukhilal, and her maternal uncle arrived and approached Sarojini Banjare. This witness also followed Sarojini Banjare. When Sarojini Banjare's father, Saukhilal, asked why she did this, she replied that she had voluntarily set herself on fire to scare her husband and got burnt badly, please save her. 26. A bare perusal of the above evidence reveals that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 15.05.2018 and she died on 22.11.2019 i.e., within one and half year of her marriage. 27. Provision of Section 304-B of IPC is also extracted below for ready reference. 18 “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. 28. 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. • Such death should have occurred within seven years of the marriage. 19 • 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. 29. 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)." 30. The aforesaid provision shows that if the woman has been subjected to cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the IPC, the court may presume that such person has caused dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides as under:- 20 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." 31. 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 32. 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 by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, and (ii) woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her 21 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 the marriage of the parties and a correlation 22 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.” 33. 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 determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and 23 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. 34. The testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, who are the father, mother and two brothers of the deceased though clearly establish that soon after the marriage, the deceased was subjected to persistent cruelty and harassment by the appellant - Shadhu Banjare (husband) for a demand of motorcycle or ₹80,000/- as dowry, but there is no allegation of cruelty and harassment against appellant - Ghuhira Banjare, who is father-in- law of the deceased and they further admitted that he is living separately from the appellant Shadhu Banjare and the deceased in his village and the postmortem report, coupled with the ocular evidence, conclusively proves that cause of death is due to extensive burn injury & its complications occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, thereby attracting the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. 35. So far as conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant – Ghuhira Banjare (in CRA No. 375/2023) is concerned, it is 24 evident from the record that despite the fact that this appellant is residing separately from his son accused/appellant Shadhu Banjare and deceased Sarojini Banjare and there is nothing on record which shows that soon before death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry by appellant - Ghuhira Banjare. Moreover, he is an old and weak person aged about 72 years, thus, we are of the considered opinion that benefit of doubt ought to have given to the said appellant by the learned trial Court, but by convicting him under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 7 years, the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality. 36. As a result, CRA No. 375 of 2023 is allowed and appellant - Ghuhira Banjare is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving the benefit of doubt. It is stated that the said appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and sureties stand discharged. He is not required to surrender. 37. The appellant - Ghuhira Banjare is directed to file personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in compliance with Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 38. So far as conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant – Shadhu Banjare (in CRA No. 373/2023) is concerned, though it is clearly establish that soon after the marriage, the deceased 25 was subjected to persistent cruelty and harassment by the appellant Shadhu Banjare (husband) for a demand of motorcycle or 80,000/- as dowry and despite assurances of good behaviour, ₹ she was found dead within few days of being sent back to the home where the deceased and appellant Shadhu Banjare (husband) are living separately, but there are certain contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding presence of this appellant at the time of incident, moreover, the cause of death of the deceased was due to extensive burn injury & its complications and it was proved to be suicidal in nature, further that there is no dying declaration or any suicidal note, as such, we are of the considered opinion that sentence awarded by the learned trial Court to appellant – Shadhu Banjare (in CRA No. 373/2023) to undergo life imprisonment, only on the basis that he being the husband of the deceased and is living with the deceased in the same premises, wherein the dead body of the deceased was found, without assigning any cogent and credible reason, is too harsh. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality in convicting the accused/appellant – Shadhu Banjare for life imprisonment though the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 304-B of IPC is RI for 7 years. 39. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence awarded by the 26 trial Court to appellant – Shadhu Banjare from life imprisonment to RI for 7 years. 40. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid factual aspects, the CRA No. 373 of 2023 is partly allowed. Conviction awarded by the learned trial Court to the appellant – Shadhu Banjare under Section 304-B/34 of IPC is hereby affirmed. However, his sentenced is modified from life imprisonment to RI for 7 years. Fine and default sentences awarded by the trial Court has remain intact. 41. The appellant Shadhu Banjare is stated to be in jail since 13.07.2020 being the date of arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as modified above. 42. 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 Chandra