IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Mina Devi, W/o. Late Arun Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.713 Of 2022
Decided On : 14-03-2024
DOWRY DEATH - Murder and Dowry Prohibition - IPC Sections 302, 304B; Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3, 4 - The court discussed the legal provisions under IPC Sections 302 and 304B, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to prove the elements of dowry death, including the demand for dowry and the causal link to the death. The court highlighted the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution, ultimately concluding that the evidence did not support the charges against the acquitted respondents, while affirming the conviction of the husband under Section 304B IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The mother of the deceased appealed against the acquittal of the deceased's in-laws and sought a harsher sentence for her husband, who was convicted of dowry death under Section 304B IPC. The deceased was allegedly tortured for dowry demands, leading to her death by burning.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the in-laws due to lack of direct evidence and the general nature of the allegations. However, it upheld the conviction of the husband, establishing that he had made dowry demands and tortured the deceased.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the in-laws and in sentencing the husband for dowry death under Section 304B IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in dowry death cases, the prosecution must prove that the death occurred under abnormal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demands. The burden of proof shifts to the accused only after the prosecution establishes these elements.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the in-laws and the conviction of the husband under Section 304B IPC, with no merit found in the appeal for a harsher sentence.
JUDGMENT :
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the mother of the deceased seeking setting aside of the judgment of acquittal dated 15th of March, 2022 passed in respect of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and enhancement of sentence awarded to respondent No. 4 by the learned trial court in Sessions Trial Case No. 100 of 2019/C.I.S. No. 100 of 2019 arising out of Dumraon Buxar P.S. Case No. 414 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. By the Judgment under appeal (hereinafter called the impugned judgment), the learned Trial Court has been pleased to acquit respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased from the charges under Section 302/34 and Section 304(B)/34 IPC. At the same time, by the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has convicted respondent No. 4 who is husband of the deceased under Section 304(B) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of eight years and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In case of non-payment of the compensation amount, the respondent No. 4 has been ordered to undergo an additional three months imprisonment.
Prosecution Case
4. As per the prosecution story which is based on the written report submitted by one Arun Choudhary, father of the deceased (PW-5), her daughter Pushpa, aged about 25 years, was married on 6.5.2018 with respondent No. 4 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. In his written report (Exbt. 3), the informant alleged that after the marriage, her daughter was being tortured by her sasural people in connection with the demand of dowry, they were demanding one motorcycle and a gold chain. He alleged that his daughter was being beaten for not bringing the dowry and this fact was being conveyed to him by his daughter over telephone. The informant got information in the forenoon of 22.10.2018 that his daughter has been killed. It is stated that when the informant reached village Nandan, he saw that his daughter had been killed by pouring kerosene oil on her body and her neck had been tied by a rope. He alleged that the sasural people of his daughter, namely, (I) Sunil Choudhary (ii) Kashi Choudhary (iii) Banarsi Choudhary (iv) Manji Choudhary (v) Sonu Kumar (vi) Guddu Kumar (vii) Banarsi Choudhary (viii) Putul Kumari (ix) Khushbu Kumari and (x) Mother-in-law of the deceased had committed murder of his daughter by burning her after throttling her neck.
5. After investigation, Police submitted a charge sheet against the husband and his parents. So far as the other accused are concerned, in absence of any material against them, they were not sent up for trial.
6. After submission of charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and upon finding that the offences are triable by the court of Sessions, the records were committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 304(B)/34 IPC as also under Section 302/34 IPC. Charges were explained to the accused persons who denied the same and claimed to be tried.
7. From the materials available on the record and the discussions made in the judgment of the learned Trial Court, it would appear that on behalf of the prosecution, altogether eight witnesses were examined. PW-1 Dr. Ravi Bhushan Shrivastava had conducted the autopsy on the dead body. PW-2 Dr. Bhupendra Nath was an observer at the time of postmortem and he has appeared as an expert witness. PW-3, Dhanu Choudhary @ Dhanu Kumar is the uncle of the deceased, PW-4 Meena Devi (the appellant) and PW-5 Arun Choudhary (informant) are the mother and father respectively of the deceased. PW-6 Shiv Narain Ram is the Investigating Officer of the case whereas PW-7 Dinesh Yadav and PW-8 Sudars
Sher Singh @ Partapa Vs. State of Haryana
State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory
To convict under Section 304B IPC, evidence of specific instances of cruelty or harassment connected with dowry demands must be established; otherwise, lesser offences may be considered.
The court affirmed conviction for dowry death, highlighting evidentiary requirements under IPC and the presumption of guilt upon failure to rebut accusations.
Prosecution must prove demand for dowry and harassment soon before death to establish guilt under Section 304B IPC; absence of such evidence leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry to establish a case under Section 304B IPC; mere suspicion is insufficient for convic....
The prosecution must establish the essential elements of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, including the demand of dowry, torture, and cruelty by the accused, to secure a conv....
The requirement of substantial evidence of dowry-related harassment is essential to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, which the prosecution failed to demonstrate.
Prosecution must prove unnatural death within seven years of marriage and cruelty/harassment for dowry 'soon before' death beyond reasonable doubt to invoke dowry death presumption; general allegatio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.