Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Shree Chandrashekhar and Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ.
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
versus
Yogendra Prasad Singh and Ors. – Respondents
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No.4 of 2006
Decided on 18.4.2023
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 106 and 113-B – Dowry death – Acquittal appeal – There is no presumption in law that all family members of husband must be held guilty for death or dowry death wherever a woman is found dead in her matrimonial home – Similarly, this is also not the law that presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act of dowry death shall be raised against all family members – Prosecution is required to lay clear, cogent and sufficient evidence to rope in family members – All related witnesses have stated in unison in Court that deceased was put to harassment and tortured in her matrimonial home – Burns produced by flame may or may not produce blisters but singeing of hair, eye-brows and blackening of skin are almost always found if victim has suffered burn injuries from flames of fire – No such signs has been observed by Doctor which could have provided indication of accidental death of deceased – There is a ring of truth percolating through evidence of all related witnesses – Circumstances of this case clearly establish guilt of husband – Impugned judgment in Sessions Trial set aside and respondent convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 304-B of IPC with a fine of Rs.25,000/-. (Paras 18, 19, 22, 25, 28 and 33)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161 – Examination of witness – A witness may or may not say everything regarding the case when his statement is recorded by Police under Section 161 – Whether any omission amounts to contradiction in a particular context is a question of fact – What is material to examine is statement of a witness in Court – A witness may tell many other things which he had not spoken before investigating officer but all such statements made in Court do not become improvements or exaggerations – An additional fact stated by a witness in Court may be an explanation to a fact already spoken by him before investigating officer – All omissions in statement of witness do not become a contradiction as envisaged under criminal jurisprudence – A witness may have said something which when compared to testimony of other witnesses would appear inconsistent but it is not every inconsistency, omission or exaggeration in evidence of a witness which may amount to contradiction. (Para 22)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Examination of accused – Right to silence of accused cannot be construed in a manner so as to put him in dock – Merely because accused has remained silent when he appeared before Court under section 313 he cannot be held guilty – However, this exercise of right to silence by accused may provide an incriminating link where there is overwhelming evidence against him but he has chosen not to offer any explanation – In a sessions trial which has proceeded in presence of accused and accused was represented through his Counsel any plea based on breach of rules of natural justice must be rejected – Witnesses have tendered evidence in presence of accused and they were extensively cross-examined by defence counsel – Even though some of important materials were not put to accused when he was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it must be inferred in law and held that he had sufficient knowledge of case set up by prosecution against him. (Para 31)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
ORDER (ORAL)
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.—
IA No.3500 of 2023
This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the respondents stating that during pendency of this acquittal appeal the Respondent No.1, namely, Rambarat Prasad Singh has died on 16.06.2013.
2. In view of the above, office is directed to delete the name of the Respondent No.1 from the array of parties.
3. IA No. 3500 of 2023 stands disposed of.
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 04 of 2006
4. This Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State of Jharkhand to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 14th October 2005 in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.
5. In Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2004, Rambarat Prasad Singh who is the father-in-law, Parbati Devi who is the mother-in-law, Sushil Kumar who is the brother-in-law and Yogendra Prasad Singh who is the husband of Ruby Rani were charged under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code for causing dowry death.
6. Parsudih PS Case No. 84 of 2003 was lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan of Bisheshwar Mandal recorded on 6th July 2003 around 06:00 PM at MGM Hospital, Jamshedpur. In his fardbeyan, Bisheshwar Mandal has stated that after the marriage whenever his daughter came to his house she would narrate her miseries in the matrimonial home on account of torture and harassment meted out to her. The informant has stated that he attempted to resolve the issue and tried to reason with his son-in-law. According to the informant, on account of harassment and torture in her matrimonial home Ruby Rani committed suicide by putting herself on fire.
7. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the aforementioned accused persons under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
8. During the trial, twelve witnesses have been produced by the prosecution to establish that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have caused dowry death of Ruby Rani. There are as many as seven witnesses who are intimately related to Ruby Rani. PW7 Gyan Mala Devi and PW8 Bimla Devi who are neighbors of the informant did not support the prosecution when they were tendering evidence in the Court and; PW11 Durga Rao is the maid servant who was rendering help to Ruby Rani in her household works.
9. The trial Judge has held that (i) evidences tendered by the related witnesses in their examination-in-chief are not admissible in law (ii) related witnesses have narrated different stories about the cause of death and (iii) evidence of the related witnesses contradicts each other on vital aspects of the case. The trial Judge has further held that PW11 who is the independent witness and spoken about cordial relations between the accused persons and Ruby Rani would lend credence to the defence story that Ruby Rani has committed suicide on account of domestic disputes and hassles in her matrimonial home.
10. The trial Judge has appreciated the prosecution evidence in the following manner:—
“In order to substantiate the submissions put forward for Prosecution, learned A.P.P. has drawn my attention towards the statement of P.W.s. P.W.1 in para 2 of his evidence, p.w.2 in para 2 of her evidence, P.W.3 in para 2 of her evidence, P.W.4 in para 1 of her evidence, P.W.5 in para 1 of her evidence and P.W.6 in para 1 of her evidence have deposed about the torture and harassment for the demand of dowry. It is evident from the evidence of these P.W.s. that P.W.1 has stated in his cross examination in para 3 that no demand of motorcycle was made at the time of marriage and marriage was solemnized with consent of both the parties. Yogendra Prasad cannot raise his hand because of the fact his hands were affected by Polio. No demand of motorcycle was ever made in his presence. P.W.2 has stated in para 8 that no demand was made at the time of marriage. She has further stated in the same para that she heard regarding demand from her sister Radha Devi in the year 1999 but she kept mum and she
(1) Dowry death – Any member of grieving family which has lost two precious lives is not expected to focus on making allegations and finding faults with husband and other family members.(2) Criminal ....
The prosecution failed to prove essential elements of dowry death, leading to acquittal of most accused, while confirming conviction of mother-in-law under Section 498-A IPC.
Persistent dowry demands and cruel treatment resulted in the presumption of guilt for murder; circumstantial evidence and statutory presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act applied.
The court established that dowry death under Section 304(B) IPC requires proof of harassment related to dowry demands, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the essential facts constituting dowry death, including the proximity between the alleged cruelty ....
The judgment establishes the application of key legal provisions such as Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the presumption under Section 113B....
The Court established that dowry death under IPC 304-B requires proof of cruelty related to dowry demands occurring soon before the victim's death.
The prosecution must prove demand for dowry and cruelty to establish a dowry death under Section 304B IPC, leading to a presumption of guilt against the accused.
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
