Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Manish Mathur, J.
Mewa Lal and Ors. – Appellants
versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2148 of 2004
Decided on 31.3.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants: M.L. Syal, Ashok Kumar, Ram Naresh Singh, Shailesh Kumar Singh, Shashi Kiran Arya
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Dowry death and cruelty – Mere demand of valuables without indication of any cruelty or harassment linked to such demand, cannot come within realm of a dowry demand.
(2) Dowry death – There should be perceptible nexus between death and dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted upon her.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B – Dowry death and cruelty – Conviction and sentence – Body of deceased did not have any burn or bodily injury – Viscera report does not indicate that any poison was administered to deceased causing her death – All such cases where cause of death cannot be ascertained, would not automatically fall within realm of unnatural death – Death has not occasioned otherwise than under normal circumstances – It is only after such burden has been discharged by prosecution at first instance that it will shift upon husband or his relatives to disprove presumption which is deemed as per Section 113-B of Evidence Act – There should be perceptible nexus between death and dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted upon her – Where mere demand for articles or valuables does not have any nexus with any harassment or cruelty which resulted in death, provisions of Section 304-B and Section 498-A IPC read with Section 113-B Evidence Act would be inapplicable – Appellants stand acquitted. (Paras 13, 14, 21, 22, 29,
31, 32, 33, 38 and 39)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Manish Mathur, J.—Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. ishwas Saraswat, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party/State.
2. Criminal Appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 30.09.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 717 of 2000 (State of U.P. v. Mewa Lal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. of 246 of 1999 under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Banthara, Lucknow convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:—
(i) under Section 304-B I.P.C. to seven years rigorous imprisonment;
(ii) under Section 498-A IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of fine, six months additional imprisonment;
(iii) under Section 4 D.P. Act to three months imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of fine, one month additional imprisonment;
(iv) All sentences shall run concurrently.
3. As per prosecution version, the daughter of informant was married to appellant No.2-Vinod in the year 1995 with dowry also being given as per demand. It is stated that on 09.11.1999, the daughter of informant (since deceased) came to her maternal house and indicated dowry demand at the behest of her in-laws. Upon her leaving house, on 13.11.1999, her parents were informed by one Ramesh that his daughter had been infected with cholera. On such information being provided, the informant, his cousin and one Shreepal went to her in-laws’ place where they came to know about her death. It is stated that the dead body was lying in courtyard ( ( ) while vomit of deceased was present. An F.I.R. was thereafter lodged with the allegation that deceased was killed by administering poison due to dowry demand not being met. The said F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act. After investigation, chargesheet was filed resulting in trial and consequent conviction of appellants.
4. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that trial Court has erred in recording conviction of appellants particularly since ingredients of Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC are not made out and consequently, provisions of Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act would also not be applicable.
5. It is submitted that for a death coming within scope of 304-B as dowry death, it is necessary to establish that death of a woman is caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of a marriage and also when it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry.
6. He has also adverted to provisions of Section 498-A IPC to submit that as per oral and documentary evidence on record, the aspect of deceased being subjected to cruelty was not made out. He has also adverted to the post-mortem report, viscera report and statement of examining doctor as PW5 to submit that since no injury was found on the body of deceased nor was any poison discovered in the viscera report, it cannot be said that death caused was owing to any cruelty or harassment or demand of dowry.
7. Learned counsel for appellants has placed reliance on following citations:—
(i) Satvir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another [AIR 2001 SC 2828]
(ii) Sher Singh alias Partapa v. State of Haryana [2015 AIR SCW 716]
(iii) Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others [2000 CriLJ 2993]
(iv) Karan Singh v. State of Haryana [(2025) (131) ACC 303]
8. Learned Additional Government Advocate has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for appellants with the submission that the statements of informant as PW1, his brother Bhola as PW2 and one Shreepal as PW3 have clearly corroborated the harassment of deceased soon before her death at the instance of appellant and therefore come within the scope of Section 304-B read with Section 498-A due to which presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
