IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, Bibhas Ranjan De, JJ.
Bagesh Singh And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A 580 of 2018 With C.R.A 581 of 2018
Decided On : 19-07-2022
Dowry Death - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A/304B/34 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, which defines 'dowry death' and the definition of 'dowry' under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court also referred to Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides for presumption as to dowry death. The court highlighted the interpretation of these provisions and their application in establishing the offence of dowry death.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was subjected to mental and physical torture by the appellants on demand of dowry. The prosecution case revolved around evidence of torture and dowry demand, leading to the death of the deceased due to burn injuries at her matrimonial home.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, soon before her death, satisfying the requirements of Section 304-B of the IPC. The court rejected the defense's arguments and upheld the conviction of all four accused/appellants for the offence for which they were tried.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution could prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry demand, soon before her death, as required under Section 304-B of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of Section 304-B of the IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the offence of dowry death. It emphasized the need for a 'proximate and live link' between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender before the Trial Court to undergo the remaining period of their sentence.
JUDGMENT
Bibhas Ranjan De, J. - Both the appeals are directed against the judgement and order dated 29.09.2018 and 04.10.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Barrackpore 24 Parganas (North), in Sessions Trial No. 01(06)2008 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 08 (07) 2007 arising out of Bizpur Police Station Case No. 40 of 2006 thereby convicting all four appellants in C.R.A. No. 580 of 2018 and C.R.A No. 581 of 2018 for committing offence punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498A /34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') ; the 3 appellants namely Bagesh Sign, Devanti Devi and Smt. Kiran Singh are further sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine Rs 5000-/ each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 5 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and appellant Daya Sankar Singh has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 10 months, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently and the period of detention already undergone in course of investigation and trial is directed to be set off in terms of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as under: that the marriage of the appellant namely Bagesh Singh with deceased Manorama Singh @ Baby was celebrated on 22.02.2004 at Madsalapur Police Station Aandar Bazar, Post Office Aandar, District Siwan, State Bihar. It is alleged that at the time of marriage one Splendor Motor Cycle, Gold Ornaments, Cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- and other valuable articles were given to bridegroom. After marriage Manorama @ Baby was brought to her in laws house at Railway Quarter No. 1209/B, Bhut Bagan, Police Station Bizpur District 24 Parganas (North). From then on, Baby was subjected to mental and physical torture by all four appellants on demand of dowry of Rs. 25,000/-. Baby informed the incident of torture to her father (complainant) over telephone. That is why Baby was taken to her parental house in September 2005 by her brother Rakesh Singh @ Guddu. She disclosed entire facts of torture to her parents. Thereafter, the appellant Daya Shankar Singh came to the house of complainant at Bihar. The complainant expressed his inability to meet up to the demand and the appellant Daya Shankar Singh made the complainant understand that the Baby would not be subjected to any torture and took her back to matrimonial home. On 16.02.2006 complainant received telephonic message to the effect that his daughter Manorama succumbed to severe burn injuries at her in-laws house.
3. On receipt of the said complaint Assistant Sub Inspector, Pranab Kumar Goswami attached to Bizpur Police Station prepared formal FIR and started Bizpur Police Station Case No. 40 dated 18.02.2006 under section 498- A/304-B of the IPC which was endorsed to sub inspector Goutam Saha for investigation. Investigating Officer visited place of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch map with index thereof and examined available witnesses by recording their statement under Section 161 of Criminal procedure Code. He also collected the inquest report of the deceased in connection with Bizpur Police Station UD Case No. 08 dated 17.02.2006, prepared by one Executive Magistrate, seizure list dated 17.02.2006 and Surothal Report prepared by one Assistant Sub Inspector, Somen Mukherjee. On his transfer Investigation Officer Goutam Saha made over the charge of investigation to Sub Inspector Manik Chakraborty on 2.07.2006. He then collected Post
Baijnath and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 1 SCC 101
Major Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab 2015 5 SCC 201
Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & others vs. State of U.P (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 661
Satbir Singh and Another vs. State of Haryana (2021) 6 SCC 1
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 304-B of the IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing th....
The conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC was quashed due to insufficient evidence of dowry demand or cruelty, emphasizing the necessity of credible evidence for such serious charges.
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....
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....
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.