As already observed above, the trial Court Judge mainly influenced by the fact that the deceased was 4th month pregnant at the time of her death, but Ex.P.14, postmortem report does not disclose that she was carrying any pregnancy at the time of her death, on the other hand under the heading “abdomen” in column No.9 – kidney and uterus, it was mentioned that “right-congested, left-congested”. Therefore, Ex.P.14, postmortem report does not disclose about the deceased carrying 4th month pregnancy. Thus, the said finding recorded by the trial Court Judge is without any basis. On the other hand, the trial Court Judge when convicting the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC has not examined whether the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC were established by the prosecution or not and only basing on the fact that the deceased died within 4 walls of the house of the accused and as the accused failed to explain the cause of death of the deceased, has came to the conclusion that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. She further observed that even though the accused has made an attempt to save the victim, he did not make any effort to shift her to the hospital. It is not the case of the prosecution that the victim after sustaining burns survived for some time. According to P.Ws.5, 6 and 7, who came to the spot on hearing the cries of the deceased, found the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, the question of accused shifting her to the hospital, when the deceased died on the spot, does not arise. Therefore, such finding recorded by the trial Court Judge is also perverse. When there is no evidence on record to establish that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry, the conviction under Section 304-B IPC or under Section 498-A IPC or under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not sustainable. Hence, the findings recorded by the trial Court Judge are liable to be set aside.
