Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 1001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
I. A. ANSARI & SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, JJ.
Dinesh Jha & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 257 & 293 of 2014
Decided On : 30-04-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Mr. Nilesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Mishra
The central legal point established in the judgment is that all the ingredients of the offence of dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code must be satisfied for the penal provisions to be attracted.
Headnote:
304B - Dowry Death - Indian Penal Code, Section 304B, Section 201, Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellants under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the death of Sonam Devi due to burn injuries and the subsequent disposal of her body.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first ingredient of the offence of dowry death, as described by Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, was not satisfied in the present case. The conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was impermissible in law.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the legal provisions under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and the determination of whether the accused-appellants could be convicted under this section.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that even if one of the ingredients of the offence of dowry death was found missing or not proved, the penal provisions contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment of conviction of the accused-appellants and the sentences passed against them were set aside, and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court for framing of the charges under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and a charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and then to try the accused-appellants in accordance with law.
I. A. ANSARI & S. P. SINGH, JJ.
Under challenge, in the present appeals, are the judgment of conviction, dated 24.02.2014, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 238 of 2011, by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali, at Hajipur, and the order of sentences, dated 28.02.2014, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Consequent upon their conviction under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also suffer, for their conviction under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand) each and, in default of payment of fine, undergo imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. These two appeals, having impugned the same judgment of conviction, dated 24.02.2014, and the order of sentences, dated 28.02.2014, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 238 of 2011, by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, are heard together for the purpose of final disposal and are being disposed of accordingly.
4. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under:
(i) Marriage of Sonam Devi (since deceased) was solemnized about seven years ago with accused Sanjay Jha @ Kanhai Jha, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 293 of 2014. A demand for motorcycle was raised at the time of solemnization of marriage and, thereafter, several other demands for valuables were made, but consequent upon the failure of the parents of Sonam Devi to meet the demands so raised, Sonam Devi was subjected to cruelty and, on 21.09.2011, at about 10.00 and 11.00 A.M., the informant (PW 5), father of Sonam Devi, came to know that his daughter had been killed by the accused persons (who are appellants in these two appeals), by setting her on fire and, upon killing his daughter, Sonam Devi, the accused persons had fled away.
(ii) With the accusations so made, as mentioned above, a fardbeyan was lodged, at Mahua Police Station, by the informant, Ranjeet Kumar Jha, father of the said deceased, and treating the said fardbeyan as First Information Report, Mahua P.S. Case No. 442 of 2010 was registered, under Sections 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused persons aforementioned.
(iii) During investigation, inquest was held over Sonam Devi’s dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem examination, and the post mortem examination revealed that Sonam Devi had suffered burn injuries to the extent of 75 per cent and died as a result of shock arising from the burn injuries, which Sonam Devi had suffered from.
(iv) On completion of investigation, a charge sheet, under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was laid against the present accused-appellants, namely, Sanjay Jha @ Kanhai Jha, Dinesh Jha, and Sudha Devi.
(v) At the trial, when charges, under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, were framed against the said accused persons, they all pleaded not guilty thereto.
5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses including the informant. The accused-appellants were, then, examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in their examinations aforementioned, all of them denied that they had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of denial. In support of their case, the defence, too, adduced evidence by examining two witnesses.
6. Having, however, reached the finding that the accused-appellants were proved guilty of the offences, which they stood charged with, learned trial Court has convicted them accordingly and, consequent thereupon, sentences have been passed against the appellants as have been mentioned above. Aggrieved by their convicti
