Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ram Prasanna Sharma, J.
KAMAL BIRHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1073 of 1999
Decided On : 10-01-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304B - Demand of dowry - Charge sheet - Mother of deceased did not deposed before trial Court regarding harassment by appellant - Deposed before trial Court that deceased did not make any complaint before her - Brother of deceased deposed before trial Court that his version is not recorded by investigating officer - Deposed Para that deceased did not state before him regarding demand of golden chain by appellant - Ashok deposed that he did not state before investigating officer regarding harassment by appellant - Deposed that deceased might have died due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry but his version is shaky in nature – Held, Case of prosecution is based on presumption that it is case of suicide - In dowry death either death is homicidal or suicidal - Accidental death would not come purview of dowry death - If death is suicidal and same is independent act of deceased then appellant is not required to explain such death - For requiring explanation of appellant it has to be established that death is caused due to active act of appellant and for that men’s has to be proved - Every death within seven years of marriage is not dowry death - Mere demand of dowry is not dowry death - Mere demand of dowry is not sufficient to term as dowry death - Crucial point is whether deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand which lead death of deceased - From entire evidence it is not clear as to what kind of harassment was done by appellant - There is no evidence of physical violence on part appellant - There is no proof of active act from part of appellant which may be termed as harassment or cruelty - Harassment has to be with definite object namely to coerce woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand - Mere demand as stated by witnesses would by itself is not sufficient to bring home guilt - Therefore in absence of evidence of harassment or cruelty charges of dowry death is not established against appellant as per factual position of present case - Finding should be on basis of objective assessment but that is not case here - Therefore finding recorded by trial Court is not sustainable – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. - The appeal is directed against judgment dated 22.3.1999 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (MP) (Now Chhattisgarh) in Session Trial No.82/1996 wherein the said Court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
2. In the present case, name of the deceased/victim is Uma Bai. She was married with the appellant on 03.3.1996 and died on 08.4.1996. The place of incident is Indira Nagar, Ward No.4, Dongargarh. It is alleged that the appellant committed cruelty against the deceased in connection with demand of dowry that is why report was lodged and the matter was investigated. The appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the finding of the trial Court is based on proper marshaling of the evidence and the same is not liable to be interfered with while invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Court below.
6. Durga Bai (PW-1) is the mother of the deceased. She did not depose regarding demand by the appellant. She further deposed (para 7) that her daughter did not inform regarding harassment by in-laws. She further deposed that the deceased did not complaint against the appellant (para 12). Mohan Goutam (PW-5) deposed before the trial Court (para 2) that the deceased informed him regarding demand of one golden chain and Rs.10,000/- by the appellant. But this witness did not depose regarding any account of harassment against the deceased. Raju Goutam (PW-6) deposed before the trial Court regarding information of the deceased regarding demand of golden chain and Rs.10,000/-, but this witness also did not depose regarding the nature of harassment on the part of the appellant. Baban (PW-7) also deposed regarding information of demand given by the deceased but he is not able to tell regarding any harassment. Ashok (PW-8) deposed that the deceased informed his wife regarding harassment by in-laws. This witness is also not able to state as to what really happened between the deceased and the appellant in the matrimonial house. Charan (PW-9) and Ganga Bai (
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
