Back
2019 Supreme(Pat) 51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Ram Awadhesh Tiwary - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 2016
Decided On : 29-01-2019
Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Adv., Bimal Kumar, Adv., Surendra Prasad Singh, Adv., Binod Bihari Singh, Adv.
The judgment establishes the legal principles of dowry death under Section 304B of the IPC and the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
304B - Dowry Death - IPC Section 304B, Evidence Act Section 113B - The court found the appellants guilty under Section 304B/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years. The judgment discusses the legal provisions of Section 304B and Section 113B of the Evidence Act, highlighting the presumption of dowry death and the rebuttable nature of the presumption.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was subjected to torture for dowry and subsequently murdered by her husband and in-laws. The prosecution presented evidence of demand for dowry, torture, and the circumstances of the death. The defense denied the occurrence and claimed natural death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty under Section 304B/34 of the IPC based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and the circumstances of the death. The defense's denial was not substantiated.
Issues: The key issues were the occurrence of torture for dowry, the circumstances of the death, and the credibility of witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of demand for dowry, torture, and the circumstances of the death to establish guilt under Section 304B/34 of the IPC. The court also emphasized the importance of cross-examination and the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were to remain in custody until the completion of their sentence.
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
1. Appellants, Ram Awadhesh Tiwary, Gayatri Devi and Subhash Tiwary have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the IPC and each one has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs. 25,000/- in default thereof to undergo R.I. for two years vide judgment of conviction dated 30.08.2016 and order of sentence dated 03.09.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.680/2003.
2. Madhusudan Tiwari (PW.7) gave his fardbeyan on 27.01.2010 at about 10:00 PM at the house of Ram Awadhesh Tiwari (appellant no.1) near the dead body of his daughter Rinku, wife of Subhash Tiwary disclosing therein that his daughter Rinku Devi has been married with Subhash Tiwary in the year 2004 and at that very occasion he had gifted the valuables according to his means. After marriage, his daughter come to her Sasural. Spending short span of time at her Sasural her husband, mother- in-law, father-in-law, Bhaisur and Debar began to torture her for procurement of demand of dowry and having non-fulfillment thereof lastly, they ousted her and for that, his daughter had instituted a case of torture against them which is still pending. However, at the intervention of Panches, his daughter was taken away to her Sasural and during course of stay, she begotten a daughter. Subsequently thereof, his daughter has again been subjected to torture by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Bhaisur, Debar along with other family members and at that very moment, they demanded Rs. 50,000/- in cash as well as a splendor motorcycle. Because of the fact that he was unable to fulfill their demand and on account thereof, his daughter was severely tortured. Lastly, his son-in-law, Subhash Tiwary, got himself remarried. Even thereafter, his daughter was continued with torture and cruelty. Today about 04:00 PM his daughter telephonically informed that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, Bhaisur and Debar are severely assaulting her. After few hours, at about 06:00 PM somebody from her Sasural village has informed him telephonically that her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, Debar, Bhaisur caused her murder by burn after sprinkling K.oil as well as litting fire. He along with his family members rushed to the place. After arrival, they have seen all the family members absconding. Dead body of his daughter was lying over chowki in burnt condition. On query he came to know that his daughter has been murdered by her husband Subhash Tiwary, mother-in-law Gayatri Devi, father-in-law Ram Awadhesh Tiwary, cousin Ram Pravesh Tiwary, Ramadhar Tiwary, Anita Devi, Shekhar Tiwari, Baby Devi, second wife of Subhash Tiwary.
3. After registration of Paru P.S. Case no.10/2010 investigation commenced and after concluding the same, charge sheet has been submitted facilitating the trial, meeting with the ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal.
4. Defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial of the occurrence. It has further been pleaded that deceased died of natural death but, the prosecution party being frustrated as they failed to squeeze the exorbitant demand, got this case filed with false and frivolous allegation. Then there happens to be specific plea with regard to other accused (since acquitted) that they were separate in mess and business from the family of these accused persons and on that very score two witnesses that means to say DW.1 Rajesh Kumar and DW.2 Dinesh Kumar Pathak have been examined.
5. In order to substantiate its case altogether eleven Pws have been examined on behalf of prosecution who are PW.1- Harendra Singh, PW.2-Narendra Singh, PW.3-Sanjay Kumar Singh, PW.4-Shambhunath Tiwary, PW.5-Devendra Singh, PW.6-Kabindra Singh, PW.7-Madhusudan Tiwary, PW.8-Shyam Nandan Jha, PW.9-Dr. Bipin Kumar, PW.10-Krishna Nand Tiwary, PW.11- Munesh
