Full Judgment
S.P. Khare, J.
1. Appellant Anand Kumar has been convicted under Sections 304B and 306, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years on each count and to a fine of Rs. 200/-.
2. Deceased Geeta Bai was married to appellant Anand Kumar in the year 1992. She committed suicide by burning herself in the house of the appellant on 26.7.1993. These facts are not in dispute.
3. The prosecution case is that the appellant was demanding a sewing machine and a table fan as dowry. He was beating her for not bringing these items from her parents. In May, 1993, the appellant took Geeta Bai to the house of her parents and left her there. He came back immediately. Deceased Geeta Bai disclosed to her parents that the appellant is demanding the above items and he was beating her. She lived there for about a month and she was sent back to the house of her husband. After 15 days, she brought an end to her life by setting her ablaze.
4. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court held that the appellant was demanding sewing machine and a table fan as dowry. He was harassing and beating her. He was treating her with cruelty. That culminated in her death.
5. In this appeal, it is argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had treated his wife with cruelty in connection with any demand for dowry and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The evidence on record has been scanned. The prosecution case rests on the evidence of Dhanraj (P.W. 3) and Sengan Bai (P.W. 4), the parents of the deceased, and Taran Bai (P.W. 1) who is her grand mother. Dhanraj (P.W. 3) has deposed that in May, 1993, accused Anand Kumar brought Geeta Bai to his house and left her there. She told him that he was causing harassment to her and beating her. She also told him that he has brought her beating there in the way. In para 7, he has deposed that the appellant was demanding table fan and sewing machine. His evidence has been fully corroborated by Sengan Bai (P.W. 4) and Taran Bai (P.W. 1). The only improvement made by Dhanraj (P.W. 3) in his evidence in the Court is that the appellant was also demanding an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. That is excluded from the consideration as that is not the prosecution case.
6. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that he has no electricity in his house and his wife did not know stitching and, therefore, it is difficult to believe the evidence of prosecution witnesses that these items were being demanded by the appellant. These are not the valid reasons upon which the prosecution evidence which is otherwise satisfactory and convincing, should be rejected. The demand of dowry is itself unreasonable and therefore it is difficult to test it on the basis of reasonableness. Geeta Bai committed suicide within 15 months of her marriage and there does not appear to be any other cause which drove her to take that step. Her parents were stricken with poverty and they could not fulfil the demand of the dowry. Even then, the appellant was making the demand. That must have caused mental anguish to his wife and further when she was physically tortured, she was left with no alternative but to terminate her life. A few decisions have been cited on behalf of the appellant but they are distinguishable on facts.
7. The conviction of the appellant under Section 304B, I.P.C. is well founded and the sentence is also the minimum prescribed by law. In such a case, there could not be separate conviction under Section 306, I.P.C. Therefore, the conviction and sentence for that offence are set aside.