Jharkhand High Court
Anup Kumar Verma vs State Of Jharkhand on 16 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ1712, I(2004)DMC489, [2003(4)JCR473(JHR)], (2004) 1 DMC 192, 2004 CRI. L. J. 1712, 2004 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 933, (2003) 4 JCR 473 (JHA), (2003) 4 JLJR 435
Author: Vishundeo Narayan
Bench: Vishnudeo Narayan
JUDGMENT Vishundeo Narayan, J.
1. The appellant named above has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 47.5.2001 and 19.5.2001 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 589 of 1998 by Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Srivastava, 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years for the offence under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code respectively. However both the sentences were ordered to rum concurrently.
2. The prosecution case arisen on the basis of the written report (Ext. 4) of SI Sanjay Kumar of Lower Bazar P.S. Ranchi, the informant, handed over to PW 10 Abhay Kumar Jha, the IO of this case at the place of occurrence on 21.4.1998 at 11.30 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 10.30 hours in the house of the appellant situate at North Samaj Street, Tharpakhana, P.S. Lower Bazar, Ranchi regarding the dowry death of Dimple Verma, the lawfully wedded wife of the appellant, caused by burn and the case was instituted by drawing of the formal FIR (Ext. 6) on the basis of the said written report on that very day which was received on 22.4.1998 in the Court empowered to take cognizance.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant was on patrolling duty in the Tharpakhana at 10.30 hours on 26.4.1998 where he got information that the daughter-in-law of Bharat Lal Verma resident of North Samaj Street, Tharpakhana, Ranchi has died of burn and he sent an informant to that effect at Lower Bazar P.S. and came to the place of occurrence where he learnt that Bharat Lal Verma along with his wife Leela Devi and his youngest son Amar Kumar had gone for pilgrimage on 5.4.1998 and his two other sons, namely, Ajay Kumar Verma and Anup Kumar Verma and their wives, namely, Anju Verma and Dimple Verma respectively were in the house. It is alleged that appellant Anup Kumar Verma had gone to the market at 9.30 hours on the day of the ccurrence for purchase of vegetable's and Ajay Kumar Verma was talking with his wife, Anju Verma in a room on the ground floor of the house and he was becoming ready to go to his shop and at that time there was a rattling sound on the upper floor of the house and smoke started emanating from there and at this they ran to the upper floor of the house and found west southern room of the first floor of the house closed from inside from which smoke was coming out and they raised alarms and started pushing the door as a result of which the iron latch of the said door broke and the door was opened and they saw Dimple Verma, the wife of the appellant, inflames and he started extinguishing the said fire by ceasefire and also raised alarms and his neighbour, PW 1, Narendra Pandey also came there with ceasefire and he also attempted to extinguish the fire, but all in vain, and thereafter they started pouring water by buckets and the fire was extinguished and in the meantime a large number of persons of the Mohalla had collected there and it was found that Dimple Verma has already breathed her last. It is also alleged that the informant also found the entire body of Dimple Verma severally burnt. It is also alleged that he got the aforesaid information from the persons assembled there. It is also alleged that marriage of appellant Anup Kumar Verma was solemnized with Dimple Verma, the deceased of this case, on 7.2.1996 in accordance with Hindu religion and rites and a son was born to her during the period of her wedlock on 4.8.1997 and the deceased was not being allowed to go to her parent's house at Gaya by the appellant after the birth of the said child in spite of her repeated attempts. It is also alleged that prima facie it does not appear a case of suicide and the death of the deceased appears to be dowry death due to cruelty perpetrated By the appellant on the deceased.
4. PW 7 Manik Chand Verma, the father of the deceased along with his wife PW 5 Leela Devi, his brother PW 2, Biltu Prasad, his brother-in-law PW 3 Murari Prasad and PW 4 Manoj Kumar came to Ranchi in the night of the occurrence on information received on phone from Kalawati Devi, the wife of Mohan Kumar, resident of Tharpakhana, Ranchi and the said Kalawati Devi is the sister of PW 5 Leela Devi and PW 7 also lodged a written report (Ext. 1) on that very day at 23.45 hours before O.C. Lower Bazar P.S. in which it has been alleged that the appellant along with his father, Bharat Lal Verma, mother, Leela Devi, brothers, Ajay Kumar, Anup Kumar and his brother's wife, Anuj Verma has committed the murder of Dimple Verma and there is also involvement of some other persons in the occurrence. It has also been stated therein that the character of the appellant is not good and he had illicit relationship with his mother and they all used to demand money from him and a dacoity has been committed in the month of August in his house at Gaya at the instance of the appellant. Thereafter a complaint petition (Ext. 2) was also filed by PW 5, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 210 of 1998 against the appellant before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 12.5.1998 regarding the said occurrence.
5. The appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and he claims Himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case on mere suspicion due to personal vendetta of PW 7 Manik Chand Verma and there was never a demand of dowry by the appellant as well as his family members from PW 7 and the deceased has committed suicide.
6. The prosecution has, in all, examined eleven witnesses to substantiate its case. It is pertinent to mention here that written report (Ext. 4) of SI Sanjay Kumar, the informant, is the basis of this case but he has not taken oath in support of the prosecution case although he is still in service. PW 1 Narendra Pandey is the neighbour of the appellant having his house in front of the house of the appellant and he has come to the place of occurrence on alarms and has participated in extinguishing the fire, which has engulfed the deceased, by ceasefire and thereafter by water along with Ajay Kumar and his wife Anju Verma, PW 7 Manik Chand Verma, PW 5 Leela Devi and PW 6 Niraj are the father, mother and brother respectively of the deceased. PW 2 Biltu Prasad is the uncle of the deceased whereas PW 3 Murari Prasad and PW 4 Manoj Kumar are the maternal uncles of the deceased and, all these witnesses are the hearsay witnesses regarding the occurrence and have claimed to have come to know about the incident from Kalawati Devi, the wife of Mohan Prasad. This Kalawati Devi has also not taken oath in this case. PW 8 Dr. Ram Sewak Sahu has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the post mortem report per his pen is Ext. 3 in this case. PW 10 Abhay Kumar Jha is the IO of this case and he has inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report (Ext. 8) of the dead body of the deceased, which was witnessed by PW 1, Narendra Pandey along with one Shyamal Dutta. He has also seized half filled match box, one gas lighter, iron latch of the door, four empty bottles of liquor from the room of the deceased where the occurrence is said to have taken place and prepared a seizure list (Ext. 7) in respect thereof on the day of the occurrence. He has also recovered several love letters written by one Sanju Kumari to the appellant and letters written by the appellant to her which were seized as per (Ext. 7-A) prepared by him on 29.4.1998 and the said recovery was made from the room on the upper floor of the house of the appellant and these letters were found kept under the pillow on the bed. PW 9 Sheo Kumar Pathak is also the other IO of, this ease, who has only submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. PW 11 Dilip Kumar Singh is a formal witness who has proved the signature of SI Sanjay Kumar on Ext. 4. Two witnesses i.e., DW 1 Anju Verma, the wife of Ajay Kumar Verma and DW 2 Binay Kumar Bindo, Advocate have been examined on behalf of the defence.
7. In view of the oral and documentary evidence coupled with the circumstances emanating on the face of the record, the learned Court below came to the finding that the death of the deceased is an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and she was treated with cruelty for the demand of dowry and the death of the deceased is a dowry death and he found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
8. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Court below has not properly scrutinized the evidence on the record with due care and caution and has erred in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant. It has been submitted that the deceased has committed suicide and there is no iota of legal evidence on the record regarding any demand of dowry by the appellant either from the deceased or from her parents or her family members and the prosecution witnesses have deliberately introduced the demand of dowry in their evidence as a result of after thought, consultation and deliberation on legal advice and in this connection a reference has been made to the evidence of PW 5 Leela Devi appearing in para 14 of her testimony. It has also been submitted that there was also total absence of any legal evidence on the record that the deceased was ever subjected with cruelty either by the appellant or his parents during the period of her stay in her matrimonial home. Lastly it has been contended that PW 2 to PW 7 are all highly interested and partisan witnesses and they have animus to depose falsely in this case against this appellant and a false accusation has also been levelled against him at their instance that a dacoity was committed in the house of PW 7 Manik Chand Verma the father of the deceased at his instance and, therefore, their testimony is fit to be brushed aside and the non-examination of Kalawati Devi as well as informant, Sanjay Kumar is a fatal lacunae of the prosecution case and an adverse inference has to be drawn against the authenticity of the prosecution case and viewed thus, the impugned judgment is unsustainable.
9. Refuting the contention aforesaid it has been submitted by the learned APP that the death of Dimple Verma has been caused by burn which has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and her death is not a natural death and there is evidence on the record that there was a demand of rupees two lakhs by the appellant and his relatives from the father of the deceased and for that the deceased was being treated with cruelty and PWs, 7, 6, 5, 4 and 3, though hearsay witnesses of the occurrence, have stated on oath regarding the demand of rupees two lakhs as dowry by the appellant and his family members from PW 7 Manik Chand Verma, the father of the deceased and failure of the fulfillment of the said demand by said Manik Chand Verma had led to the death of the deceased. It has also been submitted that the learned Court below has properly weighed the evidence on the record and has rightly come to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be said to be unsustainable.
10. It Will admit of no doubt that Dimple Verma @Bobby Kumari, the deceased of this case, is the lawfully wedded wife of appellant Anup Kumar Verma, their marriage having been solemnized on 7.2.1996 i.e., about two years prior to the occurrence and after the marriage the deceased was leading her conjugal life with her appellant-husband in his house situate at North Samaj Street, Tharpakhana, Ranchi and she has been blessed with a son during the period of her wedlock in 4.8.1997. The parental house of the deceased is situate at Naya Sadak, Maulaganj in the two of Gaya and Kalawati Devi is the sister of the mother of the deceased residing at Tharpakhana, Ranchi. There is no denying the fact that the deceased died of burn injuries on 21.4.1998 at 10.30 hours in her matrimonial home at North Samaj Street, Tharpakhana, Ranchi and her death had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. PW 8 Dr. Ram Sewak Sahu has deposed to have conducted, the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 21.4.1998 at 16.15 hours and has found the following ante mortem injuries on her dead body :--
"Dermo epidermal burn including whole of the body surface except a portion of the lower part of the abdomen and a portion of the right palm. The colour of the blood and muscle is cherry red. There is presence of carbon soot particles in respiratory passage and the internal organs are congested."
The medical witness has further deposed that pieces of burnt clothes at places on the dead body emits odour of kerosene oil. The medical witness has further deposed that death of the deceased is due to shock as a result of burn and time elapsed since death is within 6.00 to 24.00 hours from post mortem examination. In para 2 of his cross-examination, the medical witness has categorically deposed that he did not find any mechanical injury on the dead body of the deceased either external or internal. He has also deposed to have preserved the viscera of burnt clothes, swab from the body surface and tuft of scalp hair for examination by Forensic Science Labouratory and has handed them over in a sealed cover to the IO through the constable who was with the dead body. The post mortem report (Ext. 3) per pen of the medical witness supports these evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that the finding of the medical witness regarding the presence of carbon soot in the respiratory passage of the deceased totally rules out the death of the deceased as homicide. PW 10, Abhay Kumar Jha, the IO has deposed to have inspected the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is a room on the first floor in the double storied house of the appellant and this room is situate in west southern portion of the first floor and there are two doors in the said room which were found open at the time of inspection. He has deposed to have found the dead body of the deceased completely burnt fallen on the floor about two feet inside from the eastern door and the entire clothes of the dead body was found burnt. He has also deposed to have found "a 'Palang' having bed thereon with a pillow and bed and pillow were also found burnt and nylon mosquito was found melted. PW 10, the IO. has specifically deposed to have found in the said room a blue plastic jerkin of the capacity of five-liters, the top of which was open and smell of kerosene oil was emanating from it besides a four empty bottles of liquor. His evidence is further to the effect that after displacing the dead body he found a half filled matchbox under the dead body and broken glasses of the tube light as well as glass of the photo-frame was found scattered in the room. The IO has also deposed to have found a broken iron latch inside the room near eastern door and all the windows of the said room was found bolted from inside and the entire room has become blackened due to smoke. All the aforesaid articles were seized by the IO as per seizure list (Ext. 7). PW 10, the IO is conspicuously silent in his testimony regarding the presence of the nine, months old child of the deceased in the said room. There is averment in the written report of the informant that Ajay Kumar, the brother of the appellant along with his wife DW 1 Anuj Verma rushed to the first floor of the said house after hearing rattling sound and seeing smoke coming out from the room in occupation of the deceased and finding the door bolted and he started dashing the door of the said room forcibly with his legs from outside as a result of which the iron latch of the said door broke away and door was opened and they started extinguishing fire with ceasefire and also raised alarms. PW 1, the neighbour of the appellant, who has his house in front of the house of appellant, has also deposed to have come there on alarms and seeing smoke there with his ceasefire and he also participated in extinguishing the fire which has engulfed the deceased and when the fire could not be extinguished they started pouring water on her by buckets. DW 1 Anju Verma in her evidence on oath has corroborated the averments made in the written report of the informant as well as the testimony of PW 1 in her evidence. The IO has found the broken iron latch inside the room where the dead body was found and said latch was seized as per the seizure list (Ext. 7). The testimony of DW 1 cannot be discarded simply because she has figured as a defence witness being the wife of the- brother of the appellant. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram, AIR 2000 SC 1735, it has been observed by the Apex Court that deposition of witnesses, whether they are examined on the prosecution side or defence side or as Court witnesses, are oral evidence in the case and hence the scrutiny thereof shall be without any predilection or bias and no witness is entitled to get better treatment merely because he was examined as a prosecution witness or even as a Court witness and it is judicial scrutiny which is warranted in respect of the deposition of ail witnesses for which different yardsticks cannot be prescribed as for those categories of witnesses. It therefore, appears from the evidence referred to above that the deceased has set herself on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her person inside the room bolting the doors from inside besides all the windows. The presence of blackening of the entire room scattered glasses, broken mercury tube and glass of the photographs lend support that the deceased has set herself on fire. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case the accidental death of the deceased is also totally ruled out. The facts, circumstances and material on the record establish without any controversy that the deceased has committed suicide in the room under her occupation after bolting the doors from inside. There is, therefore, no rational or reasonable grounds for the informant to aver in his written report that it does not appear to be a case of suicide. He has also not taken oath in this case for the reasons best known to him to threw light regarding the basis of his opinion as averred by him in the written report regarding the death of the deceased not being a suicidal death. It is equally relevant to mention here that the appellant was not present in the house when the occurrence did take place as he has gone to market for making purchase of vegetables. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, homicidal or accidental death of the deceased is totally ruled out and it appears that the deceased has committed suicide. But still the fact remains that the death of the deceased stands surrounded by suspicious circumstances which has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage while she was living with the appellant in her matrimonial home and her dead body has been found lying on the floor of the room under her occupation. Therefore, the presumption as mandated under Section 113B of the Evidence Act may be drawn in this case regarding the dowry death of the deceased provided it is proved by legal evidence on the record that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment soon before her death for or in connection with any demand for dowry. To constitute an offence under Section 304B the following essentials must be satisfied :--
"(i) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband ;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
It is only when the aforementioned ingredients are established by acceptable evidence such death shall be called dowry death and the husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act defines "Dowry" which is quoted below :-- "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 persons, 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.
Explanation I.--* * * Explanation II.--The expression "Valuable security" has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
11. Before adverting to the evidence on the record and scrutinizing it with due care and caution, it is pertinent to mention here at the very outset that the father of the deceased was harbouring a hostile attitude against the appellant from before and he had grudge and animosity against him. In Ext. 1 it has been specifically averred by PW 7, the father of the deceased, that the appellant had got a dacotiy committed in his house at Gaya prior to the occurrence. He has also accused the appellant having oedipus relationship with his mother. It has also been stated therein that the appellant and his all family members are of criminal bent of mind. PW 7 in para 10 of his cross-examination has, however, resiled from his statement made in Ext. 1 PW 10, the IO in para 17 of his evidence has deposed that PW 7 had stated before him that dacoity has been committed in his house at the instance of the appellant and the appellant had also ilicit relationship with his mother. It is also relevant to mention here that the informant had raised a suspicion in his written report that the death of the deceased appears to have co- relation with demand of dowry and the deceased having been subjected with cruelty but no specific reason has been assigned in his written report in respect thereof. In the night of the occurrence PW 7 had also lodged a written report (Ext. 1) before Lower Bazar Police Station regarding the occurrence in which it has been stated besides several other facts that the appellant and his family members always used to demand money from him. But the averments contained therein is conspicuously silent that the said demand of money has any co-relation with the demand of dowry or in connection with the marriage of the deceased with the appellant. The averments made in Ext. 1 are also conspicuously silent regarding any torture perpetrated on the deceased by the appellant or his family members for the fulfillment of the said demand of money. There is also no averment therein that soon before the death of the deceased she was tortured, harassed, vexed, assaulted or subjected to cruelty by the appellant or his family members. The facts emerging on the face of the record and referred to above are to be borne in mind while evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence of PW 7, PW 5, PW 6 as well as of PW 3 and PW 4 who are all inter se related. PW 7 in para 3 of his evidence has deposed that after the marriage the deceased was leading her conjugal life in her matrimonial home but she was not happy there and she was subjected to cruelty by the appellant who also used to assault her. He has also deposed that the appellant had demanded Rs. two lakhs from him as dowry, which was not fulfilled by him and for that he used to assault the deceased and treat her with cruelty. In para 16 of his cross-examination he has deposed that he has not stated before the IO as well as in his written report (Ext. 1) that the appellant used to demand Rs. two lakhs as dowry from him, rather, he has stated that all the family members of the appellant used to demand money from him. In para 34 of his cross-examination he has deposed that he has stated for the first time in the complaint petition (Ext. 2) regarding the demand of Rs. two lakhs as dowry by the appellant and his family members and of subjecting the deceased with cruelty for its fulfillment. This complaint petition has been filed on 12.5.1998 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. PW 5 Leela Devi, the mother of the deceased has deposed that the appellant and his family members had treated the deceased with cruelty and she was also denied food in her matrimonial home and two months after the marriage the appellant started making a demand for Rs. two lakhs as dowry which was not fulfilled. She has also deposed that the deceased used to tell her about that. She has also deposed in para 12 of her evidence that the deceased has told PW 7 about fifteen days prior to the occurrence regarding the demand of Rs. two lakhs as dowry and she was assaulted as the said demand was not fulfilled. PW 7 in his evidence on oath does not whisper in respect thereof. PW 5 has very categorically stated in para 14 of her evidence that an advocate who has come with her today in the Court had advised her after 'Shradh' of the deceased that this case shall not proceed to their satisfaction without making out a case for demand of dowry. PW 6 has also deposed regarding the demand of Rs. two lakhs as dowry by the appellant and his family members after one year of the marriage and treating the deceased with cruelty for its fulfillment. In para 8 of his cross-examination he has deposed that whenever he has come to the matrimonial house of the deceased he was not properly and cordially received and treated by them and he was also abused by them. The IO has deposed that PW 6 Neeraj, the brother of the deceased has stated before him that the appellant was a drunkard and a man of criminal bent of mind and also characterless and due to this the deceased was not happy in her matrimonial home. PW 6 has not stated before him regarding the demand of Rs. two lakhs as deposed by him in the Court. PW 10, the IO has also deposed that PW 5 Leela Devi has not stated before him regarding the demand of Rs. two lakhs as dowry by the appellant or his family members, rather, she has stated before him that the family members of the appellant dp not have cordially talk with her and they do not allow her to go to her parent's house as per her wish. It, therefore, appears from the evidence of PWs 7 6 and 5 taken together that the case of demand of Rs. two lakhs as dowry by the appellant or his family members has been deliberately introduced in this case as a result of after-thought, deliberation and consultation as per legal advice only with a view to give a colour to the prosecution case to the detriment of the appellant.
The other set of the witnesses in respect thereof are PW 3 and PW 4 i.e., maternal uncles of the deceased and they are hearsay witnesses in respect thereof to have learnt the same from PW 7 Manik Chand Verma.) Therefore, their evidence has no relevancy regarding the demand of dowry as alleged. Here I will again revert to the evidence of PW 7 Manik Chand Verma, who has deposed in para 6 of his deposition that his daughter Dimple Verma returned to his house on the 7th day of her marriage from her matrimonial home in the company of the appellant-husband who stayed in his house for six to seven days and thereafter he returned to his house. He has also deposed that Dimple Verma lived in his house for a month thereafter and Bharat Lal Verma, the father of the appellant came to his house at Gaya and Dimple Verma returned to her matrimonial home with him. He has also deposed that he had gone to the house of appellant two weeks prior to the occurrence in question and he had met his daughter Dimple Verma and also Bharat Lal Verma, the father of the appellant and on his request Bharat Lal Verma told him that he will perform the 'Bidai' of Dimple Verma after his return from pilgrimage. PW. 7, the informant has not whispered in his evidence that, on all these occasions either the appellant or his father has never demanded any money from him. He has also not whispered that Dimple Verma has made any complaint to him regarding any torture or harassment perpetrated on her in her matrimonial home. It is equally pertinent to mention here that the demand of money as averred in Ext. 1 by PW 7, the informant, cannot be said to have any co-relation with dowry as defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act referred to above. Therefore, the averment regarding the demand of money in Ext. 1 does not at all fall within the ambit of dowry having any co-relation or connection with the marriage of the deceased with the appellant. There is also no iota of evidence on the record that Dimple Verma, the deceased of this case, was subjected to cruelty by the appellant or his family members soon before her death for any demand of money as dowry, which has any co-relation or connection with her marriage. Furthermore, PW 10, the IO has deposed in para 9 of his evidence that in course of investigation on 29.4.1998 he had recovered several love letters written by one Sanju to the appellant and also several, lover letters written by appellant to Sanju and these letters were found under the pillow on the bed of the appellant in his room. These letters have been seized as per Ext. 7/1. DW 1 has deposed that the appellant had love affairs with Sanju and this has caused bickering in the conjugal life of the deceased and the appellant. She has also deposed that appellant was a boozer and he used to return to his house late in the night. The fact that the appellant is a drunkard is established from recovery of four empty bottles of foreign liquor as per seizure list (Ext. 7) from the place of occurrence. Her evidence is further to the effect that the deceased always used to insist to go to her parent's house and she was also a woman of short temper. It, therefore, appears from the evidence of DW 1 that the deceased was not satisfied with her conjugal relationship with the appellant. DW 2 also corrobrates the testimony of DW 1 in respect thereof. A lawfully wedded wife in no ease tolerates extra-marital relationship of her husband. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case she had a melancholic conjugal life in her matrimonial home which had compelled her to end her life by committing suicide. The evidence on the record irresistibly leads to the conclusion that Dimple Verma, the deceased of this case, has committed suicide being fed up with her melancholic and pensively sad conjugal life with her appellant-husband. Therefore, there is no legal evidence at all on the record to substantiate the prosecution case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code in the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned Court below did not consider the evidence on the record in proper perspective and has committed a manifest error in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellants. I therefore, see substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment suffers with illegality and is unsustainable.
12. There is merit in this appeal and it succeeds. The appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned Court below is set aside. The appellant is found not guilty and he is, accordingly, acquitted. Let the appellant be set free forthwith if not wanted in any other case.