IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Manu Sharma @ Munnu Sharma son of Late Ramnarayan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.554 of 2017
Decided on : 28-06-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR)
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2017 and 28.03.2017 respectively passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Kaimur at Bhabua in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2015 (Trial No. 152/2016) arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 69 of 2014 registered against three accused persons, including the Appellant herein, for the offences punishable under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. By the impugned judgment, the Appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act and he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 304(B), and in case of default to pay the fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for six months, and to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act and in case of default to pay the fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for three months.
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded by the fardebayan of the informant Dinanath Sharma on 21.04.2014 at 18:10 O’clock at the house of the Appellant to the police officer is that he had married off his daughter Jyoti Kumari @ Rina to the Appellant/Manu Sharma three years back as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, his daughter started living at her matrimonial home, but since then, the son-in-law/Appellant Manu Sharma and his elder brother Munna Sharma and wife of Munna Sharma started pressurizing his daughter to bring additional dowry i.e. golden chain and other items and on account of non-fulfillment of the same, she was subjected to harassment. On being informed by his daughter, the informant and other persons went to the matrimonial home of his daughter to persuade them not to do such things. But despite that, the people of the matrimonial home kept subjecting his daughter to torture. On the day of the fardbayan, the informant got information at 5:00 O’clock in the evening that his daughter has been killed by his son-in-law Manu Sharma (Appellant) and his brother Munna Sharma and wife of Munna Sharma and they are preparing for her last rites. After this information, the informant along with his son and brother came to the matrimonial home of his daughter and found that his daughter Jyoti Kumari @ Rina has been killed and kept on a cot in the verandah and preparation was going on for her last rites. On seeing the dead body, he found that she was strangulated by rope to death. In his fardbayan, he has claimed that his daughter Jyoti Kumari @ Rina has been killed by his son-in-law Manu Sharma (Appellant), his brother Munna Sharma and the wife of Munna Sharma.
4. After lodging of the F.I.R., investigation commenced and after investigation, charge-sheet bearing no. 88 of 2014 dated 31.10.2014 was submitted against all the three F.I.R. Accused persons, including the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three Accused persons and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the charge was framed by the Sessions Court on 15.05.2015 under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the Accused persons for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and hence, the trial commenced.
5. During trial, the following six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
(ii) P.W.-2 – Pawan Sharma (Brother of the deceased)
(iii) P.W.-3 – Gorakh Sharma (Uncle o
Appabhai & Anr. Vs. State of Gujrat
C. Muniappan & others Vs. State of T.N.
Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Darya Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Haryana
Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Hem Chand Vs. State of Haryana
Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana
Major Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra
Narotam Singh Vs. State Of Punjab & Anr. (AIR 1978 SC 1542)
Pulicherla Nagaraju Vs. State of A.P.
Raja Lal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
S. Govidaarju Vs. State of Karnataka
Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Sher Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State Of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 2622
Smt. Shamim Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi)
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dal Singh: (2013) 14 SCC 159
State of U.P. Vs. Krishan Master
Subal Ghorai and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
The court established that dowry death under Section 304(B) IPC requires proof of harassment related to dowry demands, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Dowry death – Mere death of deceased being unnatural in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict accused under Section 304B and 498A of IPC.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, establishing that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry demands, leading to her suicide, thus satisfying the legal requirements fo....
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....
The central legal point established is the application of Section 304B of IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act in cases of dowry death, emphasizing the need for proximity between cruelty/harassm....
The prosecution failed to prove essential elements of dowry death, leading to acquittal of most accused, while confirming conviction of mother-in-law under Section 498-A IPC.
The prosecution must prove that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before her death to establish a case under Section 304B of the IPC; failure to ....
Conviction upheld - Dowry death - there was persistent demand of dowry made by accused from the victim who was used to subjected to cruelty and harassment for such demand and ultimately she had ended....
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.
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.