Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.
Surya Prakash, son of Om Prakash Gupta @ Bhola – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2573 of 2023
Decided On : 29-08-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860–304B read with Indian Evidence Act, 1872–Section 113B–Dowry Death–Death allegedly by throttling within seven years of marriage–Presumption against the accused–The written information authored on 01.01.2019 whereas endorsement on the said written information by the then S.H.O. of Police Station was made on 31.12.2018–In such a circumstance, the endorsement as to lodge the present case on 31.12.2018 is only appearing to be an endorsement on blank paper–The prosecution failed to explain that how it was done–It could have only be explained by examination of S.H.O. who had made this endorsement, but he could not be examined during trial leaving the mysterious question unanswered by the prosecution–These discrepancies certainly create an impression of false implication of appellant–From the deposition of the informant/PW-4, claiming to be an eye witness it appears that he never filed any complaint with any authorities including police regarding dowry demand and it also appears from his testimony and other PWs that the cruelty was not committed upon the daughter of the informant by the appellant soon before her death in connection with dowry demand rather, a different story was introduced by PW-3/mother of the victim that cause of difference between her daughter and appellant was the appellant being in relation with some girls and not keeping her daughter with him–Though the demand of dowry soon before the death, a demand was raised regarding dowry by calling on his mobile phone but said mobile phone and call was never proved–PW-5/IO. deposed that a call was made from a mobile to the phone of the informant on 31.12.2018 but the prosecution failed to connect said mobile with the appellant–The demand of dowry was alleged to have been made when the appellant/convict joined the services of Railways as Goods Guard, therefore, the proximity of demand of dowry soon before the death also appears to be doubtful–Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the foundational aspect of Section 304 of the I.P.C. as to import presumption as available under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act–It is very surprising that after witnessing the murder of his daughter, informant came to his native village and thereafter again returned to matrimonial village of his daughter, where he did not find her and thereafter reported the occurrence to police–This version of informant is sufficient to suggest that he was not the eye witness of the occurrence–Medical prescription, as available on record, suggests that the victim was under treatment for her psychiatric ailments–PW-7, who was not declared hostile deposed that the house was broken in front of him and he found the victim hanging with ceiling fan–Manner of occurrence is doubtful–It is not clear as to whether the occurrence took place due to non-payment of dowry or due to depression–Conviction and sentence set aside–Appeal allowed. (Paras 32, 33, 37 & 38)
(2015) 3 SCC 724, Paras 9, 13 & 16; (2008) 1 SCC 202 Paras 11 to 14; (2015) 2 SCC 629 pata 19.–Referred.
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.
Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/convict, Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, learned counsel for the State duly assisted by Mr. Anant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.
2. This appeal has been filed by appellant/convict against judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2023 and order of sentence dated 11.05.2023 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Danapur, Patna in connection with Session Trial No. 810/2019 arising out of Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 622 of 2018 (G.R. No. 220/2019), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven (7) years.
3. The crux of prosecution case as springs through written information of informant namely, Sajivan Sao (PW- 4) is that his daughter (deceased) was married to one Surya Prakash (the husband/appellant) as per Hindu rites and rituals on 30.05.2015. The informant stated that the husband of his daughter and other in-laws were regularly tortured her on the pretext of demand of dowry and was threatened to kill. On 31.12.2018, the informant received a call from mobile No. 6205427242 saying that the day i.e. 31.12.2018, would be the last day of his daughter. The informant further stated that after receiving the said call on his mobile, he went there and saw that mother-in-law of his daughter namely, Smt. Savitri Devi (co-accused), father-in- law Om Prakash Gupta (s/o-Bhola Sao), her husband Surya Prakash (appellant/convict) and brother-in-law namely, Chandra Prakash were physically assaulting his daughter and and finally killed by pressing her neck. The informant further stated that his deceased daughter had one daughter aged about two years and one son aged about two months out of her wedlock.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written information, the S.H.O. of Naubatpur Police Station registered F.I.R. bearing Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 622 of 2018. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant/convict and other co-accused persons under Sections 302/304(B)/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, cognizance was taken against the accused persons under the aforesaid sections of the I.P.C. Finally, the case was committed to the court of session on 15.06.2019 after compliance of the provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
5. After commitment, learned trial court explained charges to appellants/accused, on the basis of materials collected during investigation, which they pleaded “not guilty” and claimed trial.
6. To establish its case before the learned trial court, the prosecution altogether examined total of nine (9) witnesses namely, Indu Devi (PW-1), Rekha Devi (PW-2), Sona Devi (PW-3), Sajivan Sao (PW-4), Rajiv Ranjan Kumar (PW-5), Saney Lal Soren (PW-6), Raju Sao (PW-7), Sanjay Kumar (PW-8) and Dr. Avinash Kumar Singh (PW-9).
7. The prosecution has produced and relied upon following documentary evidences also as to substantiate its case during trial, which are as under:
| Exhibit No(s). | List of documents |
| Exhibit-1 | Signature of informant on written report. |
| Exhibit-2 | Protest petition filed by informant |
| Exhibit-3 | Endoresement of S.H.O. on the written report |
| Exhibit-4 | Formal F.I.R. |
| Exhibit-5 | Inquest report dated 31.12.2018 |
| Exhibit-6 | Charge-sheet. |
| Exhibit-7 | Post-mortem report dated 31.12.2018. |
8. After examination of prosecution witnesses and by taking note of evidence and incriminating circumstances as surfaced during trial, statement of accused persons including appellants/accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. which was denied in totality by claiming his complete innocence and false implication, where appellant categorically stated that on the date and time of occurrence he was on his duty at “Jhajha” Railway Station.
9. Appellant examined one witness in his defence as DW-1 namely, Niranjana Devi and also relied upon following exhibits/documents:
| Exhi | |
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 court affirmed conviction for dowry death, highlighting evidentiary requirements under IPC and the presumption of guilt upon failure to rebut accusations.
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 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....
Prosecution must prove that a woman's death occurred due to dowry-related cruelty or harassment soon before death for Section 304-B IPC to apply; lack of evidence leads to acquittal.
To sustain a conviction under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must establish a proximate link between dowry-related cruelty and the victim's death within seven years of marriage, demonstrating that....
Dowry death conviction under IPC Section 304B requires proof of cruelty/harassment for dowry demand soon before death to attract Evidence Act Section 113B presumption; mere presence at scene insuffic....
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 ....
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
