Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 829
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi, JJ.
JAGDISH & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1097/2012
Decided On: 25-11-2014
IMPORTANT POINT
Considering the age of the accused, passage of time since the incident and othger facts of the case, lenient view can be taken while sentencing.
Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B and 498A – Appellant living separately in another village – Having no wife or child – No question of persistent demand of dowry – Signing compromise deal as senior member of family – Appellant about 70 years of age – Offence u/s 304B not made out – Held, guilty of offence u/s 498A – However, lenient view should be taken while sentencing – Sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Para 15, 16, 18)
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B and 498A – Concurrent findings of courts below convicting Appellants 2 and 3 u/s 304B and 498A – No interference warranted – They having physically handicapped child and also taking care of the son of deceased – Sentence reduced to 7 years. (Para 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
Marriage between complainant’s daughter Seema (deceased) and Chandrahas was solemnized in the month of May 1991.
Within few days of marriage, Chandrahas alongwith his parents and relatives, started harassing Seema on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
In August 1994, the deceased after being severely beaten, was ousted from her matrimonial home and she was told that she should only return with Rs.20,000/-cash and a Hero Honda motorcycle and Seema came to her father’s house.
On intervention of Panchayat the parties arrived at a settlement and PW-1 left Seema in her matrimonial house.
However, after one month, the deceased again wrote a letter to her father describing the harassment meted out to her. PW-1 was unable to visit his daughter immediately on account of the then ongoing work of crop cutting. On 12.5.1995, Subhash Chandra (PW-4) came to the house of PW-1–Meharchand and informed him that Seema had been killed by her in-laws and burnt to death.
Trial court convicted and sentenced all accused, the husband, father of the husband, uncle of the husband, elder brother of husband, younger brother of husband, and mother-in-law and wife of the elder brother of the husband.
High Court affirmed the Conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
Conviction of appellant no. 1 u/s 304B IPC is not sustainable.
Conviction of appellants no. 2 and 3 u/s 304B and 498A IPC does not require interference.
Result:
Appeals partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J.
This appeal arises out of judgment dated 29.12.2011 passed by High Court of Uttarakhand in Criminal Appeal No.215/2002, in and by which, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on each of them.
2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that marriage between complainant–Meharchand’s daughter Seema (deceased) and accused-Late Chandrahas was solemnized in the month of May 1991. As per his capacity and status, PW-1-complainant gave sufficient dowry and articles. But within few days of marriage, Chandrahas alongwith his parents and relatives, started harassing Seema on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. PW-1-father of the deceased, having poor resources, was unable to meet these ever increasing demands. PW-1, repeatedly requested Chandrahas and his family members not to harass his daughter, but they remained firm in their demands of motorcycle and dowry amount. PW-1 could collect only meagre amount of Rs.2,000/-and gave it to the family of Chandrahas and requested them not to ill-treat his daughter.
3. Thereafter, in August 1994, the deceased after being severely beaten, was ousted from her matrimonial home and she was told that she should only return with Rs.20,000/-cash and a Hero Honda motorcycle and Seema came to her father’s house. On seeing her condition, PW-1 took the deceased to Saharanpur District Hospital, where she was medically examined and treated for her injuries. On 4.9.1994, with the intervention of the Panchayat and assurances on the part of Chandrahas (husband) and his family, the parties arrived at a settlement and it was decided that Seema was to be taken back to her matrimonial house and that they will not torture Seema. Based on the settlement and the assurance thereon, PW-1 left Seema in her matrimonial house. However, after one month, the deceased again wrote a letter to her father describing the harassment meted out to her. PW-1 was unable to visit his daughter immediately on account of the then ongoing work of crop cutting. On 12.5.1995, Subhash Chandra (PW-4) came to the house of PW-1–Meharchand and informed him that Seema had been killed by her in-laws and burnt to death. Hearing this, PW-1–Meharchand alongwith some villagers went to Churiyala–Chandrahas’s village; but there was none at the house. On being informed of the incident by the villagers, PW-1 reached the cremation ground and found the pyre still burning.
4. PW-1–Meharchand lodged a complaint at Police Station Bhagwanpur, Village Churiyala, District Haridwar, on the basis of which FIR No. 42/95 for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against all the persons namely Chandrahas–Husband, Sukhbir-father-in-law, Jagdish-elder brother of Sukhbir, Yogendra (jeth)-elder brother of Chandrahas, Chandraprakash-Dewar (brother-in-law), Pushpa-mother-in-law and Savita (Jethani)-wife of Yogendra. After due investigation, chargesheet was filed against all of them.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined eight witnesses and exhibited documents and material objects. Sessions Court found all the accused persons guilty under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 IPC and sentenced each of the accused to undergo life imprisonment under Section 304B, two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC. Being aggrieved, appellants Jagdish–elder brother of Sukhbir, Yogendra– elder brother of Chandrahas, and Savita–wife of Yogendra filed an appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand. Husband of the deceased-Chandrahas and his parents, namely, Sukhbir and Pushpa have all passed away and the case against them abated. High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused-appellants and dismissed the appeal. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment of the Hi
