Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Mir Alfaz Ali, S. Hukato Swu, JJ.
Abinash Suklabaidya and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam GHC and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.A. 12, 17, 343 of 2018
Decided On : 03-06-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M Biswas
For the Respondent: Ms. S Jahan (Addl. PP)
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-B - Dowry death - Accused convicted for dowry death but given lesser sentence than minimum prescribed - Overturning of conviction due to lack of evidence for cruelty or dowry demand against accused before death - Medical affirmation confirms suicidal hanging - Presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act not applicable - Acquittal upheld based on reasonable doubt. (Paras 28, 30, 54, 56)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32(1) - Dying declaration - Statements made by a deceased about circumstances leading to death can be considered valid under Section 32(1), if causative and within a live context. (Paras 40, 46)
Facts of the case:
Conviction of accused for dowry death invoked due to the death of Anurupa Suklabaidya, wife of Abinash Suklabaidya, a month post strained marital relationship amid dowry demands. Victim found hanged in bathroom post-harassment reports to family - post-mortem confirmed cause of death as suicide. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented by prosecution lacked coherence and failed to prove 'soon before death' criterion; guilt not established beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 54, 55)
Issues: Did the prosecution sufficiently demonstrate cruelty or harassment soon before the victim's death for dowry, as required under IPC Section 304-B and Evidence Act Section 113-B? (Paras 30, 54)
Ratio Decidendi: Conviction for dowry death overturned on the basis that essential elements, such as immediate cruelty linked to dowry demand, were not proven; the medical consensus deemed death a suicide incident. (Paras 54, 55)
Result: Conviction and sentences under Section 304-B IPC set aside; Appeals allowed. (Paras 56)
JUDGMENT :
Mir Alfaz Ali, J.
Appellants Abinash Suklabaidya, Anukul Suklabaidya, Adhir Suklabaidya and Smt. Dipti Suklabaidhya stood convicted u/s 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant Abinash Suklabaidya was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 8 (eight) years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with default stipulation. Anukul Suklabaidya was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) with default stipulation. Appellants Adhir Suklabaidya and Dipti Suklabaidya were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) each with default stipulation.
2. Crl. A. 12/2018 and Crl. A. 17/2018 were filed by the accused/appellants challenging the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. Crl. A. 343/2018 was filed by the informant, father of the victim, challenging the acquittal of the accused/appellants of the charge u/s 302 IPC and imposition of inadequate sentence.
3. All the three appeals having arisen out of the same judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Silchar, in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2013, are taken up together for hearing and disposal by this common judgment.
4. As per prosecution case, Anurupa Suklabaidya was married to the appellant Abinash Sukblaidya on 24-02-2011. At the time of marriage the parents of the deceased paid dowry, whatever was possible for them. But being dis-satisfied with the dowry, the five accused persons named in the FIR including the present appellants started harassing the deceased, daughter of the informant both physically and mentally since after few days of the marriage. The deceased informed her father (the informant) about the demand and harassment meted out to her, however, he advised the deceased to keep patience and to continue with the marital life. The victim was brought on “nior”, (a ceremonial visit of the bride to parental house) by her father and she was taken back by the appellants on 10-08-2011 at 4 p.m. However, on 11-08-2011 appellant Adhir Suklabaidya informed the father of the deceased, that her daughter was seriously ill. Immediately they rushed to the matrimonial home of the deceased and found her hanging in the bathroom. Suspecting that the accused persons might have killed the victim in a pre-planned manner, PW-7, Chitta Ranjan Suklabaidya, father of the victim lodged an “Ejahar” with the police station, which was treated as First Information Report and Silchar P.S. Case No. 1330/2011 was registered u/s 304-B IPC. In course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, prepared sketch map, recorded the statement of the witnesses and inquest on the body of the victim was conducted by PW-5, J.R. Lalsim, Circle Officer. The inquest report was proved as Ext.-1. Post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Y.N. Singha (PW-8), who found as follows :
“(1) Dark red and bluish injury over the left side of the chest 4 x 3 cm. in the fourth and fifth intercostals space in the mid auxillary line.
(2) Hairline tissues as fracture united at mid auxiliary point over the fourth rib of left side and
(3) Healed abrasion over the dorsum of right wrist measuring 2 x 1.5 cm. An oblique non-continuous ligature mark present in the neck above the level of the thyroid cartilage mearsuring 23 x 1.5 cm. with dry parchmentised appearance of the ligature mark, with discontinuity containing to the position of knot present over the right mastoid area.”
In the opinion of the autopsy doctor, death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, which was suicidal in nature. All the injuries were ante mortem caused by blunt force object and time of death was within 12 to 24 hours approx. before the post mortem examination.
5. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the appellants u/s 304-B/34 IPC.
6
