Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and KHATIM REZA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 1075 with 1071 of 2018
(2.2.2024)
Rajesh Ravidas (in 1075)
Surendra Ravidas (in 1071) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in both)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B/34 – Dowry Death – following are the essential ingredients to establish an offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C.: (i) the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances (ii) Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) It is 'shown', that soon before the death of such women, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in accordance any demand of dowry; (iv) only if all the above noted conditions are fully established at the trial, a dowry death can be said to have been caused and husband or relative of such woman shall be deemed to have caused her death; – demand of any property or valuable security by a party to a marriage to the other party or by the parents of either party to any other person shall fall within the definition of dowry if such demand, 'at' or 'before' or 'any time after the marriage' only if, it is in connection with the marriage of said parties – in the present case, there is no specific reference to even approximate time of demand of dowry, if any, made by the appellants – they have vaguely deposed at the trial that there was demand of dowry – it cannot be deduced from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 & 6 that if any such demand was made by the appellants, it was done soon before the death – the prosecution miserably failed to show at the trial, even on the preponderance of probabilities, that there was a demand of dowry, let alone, "soon before the death" of the deceased – impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – appeals allowed. (Paras 12, 17, 18 & 21)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Examination of accused – it was incumbent upon the court to have questioned the appellants on the point of the finding of the FSL – the same having not been done, the trial court ought not to have relied upon the report of the FSL. (Para 22)
(2013) 10 SC 268, (2015)3 SCC 724 – Referred.
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—These appeals have been preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, putting challenge to the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 07.07.2018, passed by learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 673 of 2017, 125 of 2017 arising out of Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 51 of 2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:—
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1075 of 2018
| Appellant | Penal provision | Imprisonment | Sentence Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine |
| Rajesh Ravidas | Under Section 304B/34 of the IPC | R.I. for Life | - | - |
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1071 of 2018
| Appellant | Penal provision | Imprisonment | Sentence Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine |
| Surendra Ravidas | Under Section 304B/34 of the IPC | R.I. for Life | - | - |
2. The brother of the deceased, Pramod Kumar Das (PW-4) is the informant whose written report, addressed to the Officer-In-Charge of Pakaribaraw (Nawada), is the basis for registration of the concerned Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 51 of 2016 on 25.03.2016 disclosing commission of offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). The informant alleged that the deceased was married to the appellant Rajesh Ravidas of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1075 of 2018, nearly one and a half years ago. He alleged cruelty meted out to the deceased by her in-laws including these appellants for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, which they used to make. Despite intervention of Panches, no compromise could be reached. He also alleged that once his sister had called him on mobile belonging to his cousin Ranjeet (not examined) alleging demand of dowry and she being subjected to cruelty, whereupon the informant’s brother Subodh Kumar and his nephew Navlesh Kumar (both not examined) had gone to her matrimonial home to bring her back to her paternal home (maikaa). The husband of the deceased (Rajesh Ravidas, an appellant) and his father Surendra Ravidas, who is also the appellant, did not allow the deceased to go to her maikaa. The appellant Surendra Ravidas (father-in-law of the deceased) and his wife (mother-in-law of the deceased) had asked them to come after Holi with money whereafter only they would allow the deceased to go to her maikaa. On 24.03.2016, the informant received a call on his cousin’s mobile phone that the victim had been killed by poisoning. On reaching the matrimonial home of the deceased, he found her dead body lying. Upon inquiry, the informant and his family members learnt that the deceased had been poisoned, which led to her death. These appellants and the relatives, he alleged, had fled away from their house.
3. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination. During the postmortem examination, no external injury was found visible on the dead body. The cause of death could not be ascertained. The viscera was kept for chemical analysis and was sent for forensic examination. The FSL recorded following finding in its report (Exhibit-5):—
“ALUMINIUM PHOSPHIDE was detected in the contents of glass jars ‘A & B’ as described above. Aluminum Phosphide commercially known as ‘CELPHOS’ is a severeg-astro- intestinal irritant.
It is used as a grain preservative and is highly poisonous.”
4. The police upon completion of investigation had submitted chargesheet whereupon cognizance was taken of the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC. Charge was later framed against these appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is worthwhile mentioning that the wife of the appellant Surendra Paswan, i.e., mother-in-law of the deceased had absconded and, therefore, her case was separated from these appellants.
5. At the trial, the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses including the father of the deceased (PW-1); brother of the deceased (PW-4); the sister-in
The court affirmed conviction for dowry death, highlighting evidentiary requirements under IPC and the presumption of guilt upon failure to rebut accusations.
The prosecution must establish all ingredients of Section 304B IPC, including demand for dowry soon before death, to invoke presumption of guilt under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death to sustain a conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The court affirmed that a conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC is established when a woman dies shortly after marriage due to cruelty for dowry demands, while simultaneous conviction un....
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
