Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA & KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
Panchanand Mandal @ Pachan Mandal & Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2173 of 2009
Decided On : 04-10-2013
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304B - Demand of dowry not established - Section 304B not attracted. (Para 16)
(2008) 1 SCC 202 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This is appeal against conviction and sentence u/s 304(B)/34 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
Prosecution failed to establish its case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a criminal appeal against the conviction of the accused under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code for dowry death (!) (!) .
The prosecution's case was primarily based on the FIR, dying declaration, and statements of the deceased’s mother and brother, which indicated that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment related to dowry demands shortly before her death (!) (!) .
The essential ingredients for establishing dowry death under Section 304B include the death occurring within seven years of marriage, caused by burns or bodily injury under abnormal circumstances, and the victim having been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives for dowry (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court scrutinized the reliability of the dying declaration, noting that the officer who recorded it was not examined, and no medical certification was provided to confirm the deceased’s mental and physical fitness to make such a statement. This raised doubts about its evidentiary value (!) (!) .
The statements of the witnesses who were close relatives of the deceased were considered interested and potentially unreliable, and independent witnesses did not corroborate the allegations of dowry harassment or cruelty (!) (!) .
The court observed that the evidence did not conclusively establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment immediately before her death or that the death was caused by dowry-related cruelty, leading to reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case (!) (!) (!) .
Consequently, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction and the immediate release of the accused (!) (!) .
The court emphasized the importance of reliable evidence, particularly concerning dying declarations and witness testimonies, in cases of dowry death, and highlighted procedural lapses that compromised the integrity of the evidence presented (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.
Judgment :-
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 20th September, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 2001. By its impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellants and affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Thus Trial Court order, finding the appellants- Panchanan Mandal @Pachan Mandal and Malti Devi alongwith two others guilty of the offence under Section 304(B)/34 IPC and convicting them with imprisonment for life was upheld by the High Court.
2. The case of the prosecution is based on fard-beyan (I.R.) of informant Bachchu Sao (PW-14) who is the brother of the deceased – Basanti Devi. According to the fard-beyan(I.R.) recorded on 14th August, 1998 at Sadar Hospital, Giridih, the marriage of his deceased sister Basanti Devi was solemnised with the accused Kaleshwar Mandal about five years prior to her death. On 12th August, 1998, Bachcho Sao got information that his sister- Basanti Devi had suffered burns and was admitted in Giridih Sadar Hospital for treatment. He came to Sadar Hospital, Giridih alongwith other members of his family in the evening of 12th August, 1998 itself. He saw his sister had been badly charred with fire. Her whole body had sustained burns. On 13.8.1998 at about 11.00A.M. when she regained her senses, she told him that at about 9.00-10.00 at the night of 11.8.1998 while she was baking bread in the kitchen of her –in-laws house; her father-in-law-accused Panchanan Mandal, his wife-accused Malti Devi and his two sons Falo Mandal and Daso Mandal came there. Her father-in-law poured kerosene oil on her head from a tin and her mother-in-law set fire to her sari with a burning wood of her oven saying that she had not brought a cow and a golden ring in dowry. Her elder brother-in-law (jaith)- Falo Mandal and younger brother-in-law(Daiver)- Daso Mandal took out knives and started threatening her that if she cried aloud she would be killed. When she tried to extinguish fire and came out of the room, all the accused persons pushed her inside the kitchen with lathis and they kept on watching her burning. She also stated him that her husband had gone to Calcutta but while leaving for Calcutta, he had asked the members of his family to kill the deceased by burning. In the fard-beyan, it is further stated that whenever the deceased used to come to the house of her informant brother, she used to say that her-in-laws always harass her for a cow and a ring as dowry and sometimes they even assaulted her. Her statement had also been recorded by an A.S.I. of Police on 13.8.1998 at about noon at the hospital itself. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at about 2.00 A.M. on 14.8.1998 during the course of her treatment.
3. On the basis of fard-beyan(I.R.), Madhupur P.S. case No.160/98 dated 16.8.1998 was registered at Madhupur Police Station. After investigation father-in-law, mother-in-law, two brother-in-laws and husband of the deceased were charge-sheeted for trial.
4. The accused denied the charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence. Their defence was that Basanti Devi had accidently caught fire while she was cooking food in her in-laws house; the accused persons had tried their level best to extinguish the fire, but still she sustained injuries. Her in-laws brought her to Giridih hospital for her treatment and the accused persons had spent a huge amount for her treatment. Thus, they were not liable for any offence on account of her death which was actually caused due to accidental fire.
5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. PW-1(Chhatradhari Mandal; PW-2(Sanjay Kumar Mandal); PW-3 (Kedar Ram); PW-4 (Pairu Kole; PW-5 (Tulsi Mandal), PW-7(Nunulal Mandal); and PW-11 (Janki Mandal) did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. PW-6 (Kameshwar Mandal); PW-8 (Tribhuvan R
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
