SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Pat) 1053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
GOPAL PRASAD, J.
Tara Muni Devi and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 550 of 2015
Decided On : 18-05-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Mr. Anirudh Kumar Singh and Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.A. Ahmad.

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove that the victim was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for or in connection with any demand for dowry to establish the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code.

Headnote:

Dowry - Offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code - [Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code] - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for or in connection with any demand for dowry. The court held that the ingredients for the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code were not established, and set aside the order of conviction and sentence against the appellants.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the death of a woman under suspicious circumstances, allegedly due to dowry demands and cruelty by her in-laws. The prosecution alleged that the victim was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of dowry demands and was subsequently murdered.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for or in connection with any demand for dowry. It held that the ingredients for the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code were not established.

Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution had proven that the victim was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for or in connection with any demand for dowry, as required under Section 304-B of the Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution was vague and lacked specificity regarding the alleged cruelty and demands for dowry. It found that the prosecution witnesses' evidence was general and omnibus, and did not establish the necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of conviction and sentence against the appellants, as it found that the prosecution had not proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

GOPAL PRASAD, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

2. The appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 02.04.2015 and order of sentence dated 06.04.2015 passed by Sri Bishwanath Singh, the learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2012 (arising out of Bihiya P.S. Case No. 185 of 2010) by which the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Further the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and payment of fine of Rs. 5000/- each for offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and for non-payment of fine further sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months. Further ordered all the sentenced were run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case as alleged in the First Information Report by the informant, Suresh Yadav, that he had solemnised marriage of his daughter Lila Devi with Ramesh Yadav in the year 2009. At that time of marriage, he had gifted clothes, jewelleries as per his ability. Further case is that his daughter after one year of marriage, she came to the house of the informant. Then she disclosed to the informant that sasural people used to demand buffalo and golden chain. The informant disclosed that sasural people of her daughter tortured her for demand of dowry. Then, informant anyhow manages to sasural people of her daughter. Further case is that the victim disclosed to her sasural people that her parents are very poor and whatever they had paid/spent everything in the marriage and they are unable to pay anything. On which the husband of the daughter, Ramesh Yadav, further-in-law Langtu Yadav, mother-in-law Tara Muni Devi all residents of Village-Kalyanpur, P.S. Bihiya, District Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 550 of 2015 dated 18-05-2016 Bhojpur used to assault and torture her by various means. On the said information, the informant disclosed his daughter that he will go to her sasural and will make them understand. Further case is that in the month of Jaisth, the son-in-law of the informant came to his house and took the daughter of the informant after Bidai and keeping her for some days. Thereafter, all the accused persons subjected to her cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On 15.09.2010 at about 6.00 P.M., the informant learnt that his daughter had been done to death for dowry and after committing murder the dead body was burnt. On the said information, the informant along with co-villagers went to Village-Kalayanpur, the sasural of his daughter, then saw that house of sasural of his daughter was lock and key and all the inmates of the house were absconding and infer that all the accused persons in pursuance of common intention murdered Lila Devi, the daughter of the informant.

4. On the written report of the informant an endorsement was made on which Bihiya P.S. Case No. 185 of 2010 was registered and S.I. Kara Rati Das was ordered to investigate the case. After investigation, cognizance taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. During trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 is Sunil Yadav had been declared hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 2 is Sanjay Yadav had also been declared hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 3 is Dinesh Yadav, the uncle of the deceased and had deposed that marriage of the victim had solemnised with Ramesh Yadav as per Hindu customs. After one year of her marriage, the victim disclosed that mother-in-law Tara Muni Devi, father-in-law Langtu Yadav, husband Ramesh Yadav and Rajendra Yadav, the maternal uncle of Ramesh Yadav were demanding buffalo and golden chain as dowry. On which the niece of this witness disclosed her sasural p


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top