Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
GAUTAM CHATTERJI AND ANOTHER - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2173 of 1996
Decided on : 17-09-2012
DOWRY DEATH - CRIMINAL LAW - IPC 498-A, 304-B - The court discussed the dying declaration, the absence of the deceased's statement, and the lack of evidence for cruelty for dowry demand. The court highlighted the legal provision allowing the defense to use an unexhibited document if favorable and the presumption of prejudice due to non-furnishing of a statement. The court acquitted the accused due to doubts about the fairness of the prosecution and lack of concrete evidence for cruelty or dowry demand.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Sangeeta, suffered burn injuries and died under suspicious circumstances less than a year after her marriage. The prosecution alleged cruelty and dowry demand by the accused, but the defense argued that the dying declaration favored the accused and there was no evidence of cruelty or dowry demand.
Finding of the Court:
The court found doubts about the fairness of the prosecution due to the non-furnishing of the dying declaration and the absence of the deceased's statement. The court highlighted the lack of concrete evidence for cruelty or dowry demand and acquitted the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the dying declaration, absence of the deceased's statement, and lack of evidence for cruelty or dowry demand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal provision allowing the defense to use an unexhibited document if favorable and the presumption of prejudice due to non-furnishing of a statement. The court also highlighted the lack of concrete evidence for cruelty or dowry demand.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused due to doubts about the fairness of the prosecution and lack of concrete evidence for cruelty or dowry demand.
PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.11.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 131/1996 convicting the accused/appellants u/s 498-A & 304-B IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 304-B only. In the present case the name of the deceased is Sangeeta wife of accused/appellant No. 1 herein namely Gautam Chatterji. Their marriage had taken place on 29.01.1994 and on 19.12.1994 the deceased suffered 80% burn injuries and succumbed to the same on 20.01.1995. Accused/appellant No. 2 was the father-in-law of the deceased whereas accused/appellant No. 3 is mother-in-law of the deceased. During pendency of this appeal accused/appellant No. 2 has expired. On 19.12.1994 the deceased was hospitalized after suffering 75% burn injuries. On 20.12.1994 case u/s 309 IPC was registered against the deceased vide Crime No. 587/94 and after investigation of the said case on 20.01.1995 FIR Ex. P/25 was registered against the accused persons u/s 498-A IPC. Deceased was medically examined vide Ex. P/12 by Dr. Harendra Shah (PW-8) and her dying declaration (unexhibited) was recorded on 20.12.1994. Deceased died on 04.02.1995 and the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC were registered against the accused persons. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against them on 25.03.1995 for the said offences.
2. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. This apart one defence witness namely Mahadev (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case.
3. After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment. During the pendency of this appeal, accused/appellant No. 2 has expired and therefore this appeal would be only in respect of accused/appellants No. 1 & 3.
4. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that dying declaration of the deceased was though recorded on 20.12.1994 yet deliberately the same was not filed along with the charge sheet as it was in favour of the accused persons and ultimately on intervention of the High Court copy of the said dying declaration was served to the accused/appellants. According to him, as per the dying declaration the deceased suffered burn injuries on account of accident when she had gone to extinguish the earthen lamp. He submits that though the said dying declaration is not exhibited, as the same is in favour of the accused persons it can always be used by them. In support of his submission reliance is placed on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Lallu Singh Samgar Vs. State of M.P., (1996) MPLJ 452 in the matter of Bharat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1992) CriLJ 3218, in the matter of Shatrughan and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1993) CriLJ 120 and in the matter of Bhanbgwantibai Vs. State of M.P. 2002(5) MPIIT 346. He submits that the incident had taken place on 19.12.1994 whereas the deceased died on 04.02.1995 and though she survived for more than 45 days her case diary statement has not been recorded by the prosecution and that itself shows that the death was accidental one. He submits that there is no evidence on record to show that soon before the death the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons and unless this fact is established by the prosecution, the accused/ appellants cannot be convicted u/s 304-B IPC. In support of this submission he placed his reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC 463 as also in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. He submits that in the cas
AI
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
