SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Raj) 908

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rajendra Saxena, P.K.Tewari, JJ.
Surya Prakash and Naraini - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 300 of 1996.
Decided On : 29-01-1998

Advocates:
For the Appellant:S.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R.S. Agrawal, Advocate.
For the Complainant:Shree Swame, Advocate.

The expression "soon before" in Section 304B, IPC, is a relative term and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - DOWRY DEATH - SECTION 304B, 498A, IPC - CHARGE - EVIDENCE - POST-MORTEM REPORT - MEDICAL OPINION - CAUSE OF DEATH - INJURIES - LIGATURE MARKS - ASPHYXIA - DEMAND OF DOWRY - CRUELTY - HARASSMENT - SOON BEFORE DEATH - PRESUMPTION - SECTION 113B, EVIDENCE ACT - CONVICTION - SENTENCE.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, Surya Prakash and his mother Naraini, were convicted by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC, for causing the dowry death of Beena, the wife of Surya Prakash. The trial court acquitted the co-accused Shankarlal, the father of Surya Prakash. The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 304B, IPC, as there was no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. However, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 498A, IPC, as there was sufficient evidence to show that the appellants had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the offence under Section 304B, IPC? 2. Whether the prosecution proved the offence under Section 498A, IPC?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. To constitute the offence under Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution must prove that: - the death of the woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; - the death occurred within seven years of her marriage; - soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry. The expression "soon before" is a relative term and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, there was no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 304B, IPC. 2. To constitute the offence under Section 498A, IPC, the prosecution must prove that: - the husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjected her to cruelty; - the cruelty was with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security; - the cruelty was on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Section 304B, IPC, were quashed and set aside. The conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Section 498A, IPC, were maintained.

JUDGMENT

1. - Appellant Surya Prakash, his mother appellant-Naraini and his father Shankerlal faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A, Indian Penal Code before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City- Jaipur, who by his impugned judgment dated 3.5.1996 giving benefit of doubt acquitted Shankerlal but convicted appellants Surya Prakash and Naraini for the said offences and sentenced each one of them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further under go imprisonment for one month on the first count and to three years Rl and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' imprisonment on the second count. He further directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The facts of this appeal are short and simple and can be recapitulated within a narrow compass. Deceased Beena was married to appellant Surya Prakash on 5.3.1991. At the time of marriage, Surya Prakash demanded "Yamaha" motorcycle from his mother-in-law PW 3 Smt. Lali. He repeated the same demand before his father-in-law PW 1 Chandalal in presence of many prosecution witnesses. PW 1 Chandalal expressed his inability to meet this demand of appellant Surya Prakash. Chandalal told to co-accused Shankarlal that it was not settled between them to give motor cycle in dowry. Thereupon, the latter told that Surya Prakash was a young boy and he would continue to make such demands and asked Chandalal to go ahead with the marriage ceremonies. However, at the time of "Vida" of marriage party, co-accused Shankarlal did not take his meals thereby showing his displeasure. After six months of the marriage, deceased Beena came to her parents' house and informed that her husband Surya Prakash and mother Naraini used to harass and beat her and make persistent demands for bringing the motor cycle. PW 1 Chandalal after 4-5 days went to the house of appellants and told Shankarlal about ill- treatment given to her by the appellants, whereupon the latter felt sorry and assured that in future such harassment shall not be repeated. Despite that appellants continued making their demands for motor cycle and persistently mal-treated and harassed her in connection with the said demand. It is alleged that deceased Beena used to make complaints to her parents off and on about the mal-treatment given by the appellants. It is the case of the prosecution that at appellants' house in presence of PW 1 Chandalal, Beena also wept and asked to take her with him, failing which appellants would kill her. Thereupon Chandalal brought her to his house, where she was given treatment to the injuries sustained by her. It is alleged that Shankarlal again begged excuse and assured Chandalal that Beena would not be harassed in future. Hence she was sent to house. It is also the case of prosecution that even thereafter appellants continued harassing her in connection with their demand of motor cycle. In the morning of 11.4.1993 Beena died at appellants' house in abnormal circumstances. PW 1 Chandalal was informed about her death. He went to appellants' house, where he saw the dead body of Beena having injuries on her neck. PW 1 Chandalal submitted written report Ex. PI before PW 12 Ravindra Nath Singh, SI of Police Station, Neemri on the spot, where the latter had come on a telephonic message intimating about her death. Police Station, Neemri was earlier an out-post of Police Station Brahampuri, Jaipur but lately the same was raised as a separate Police Station. However, no notification of the establishment of Police Station, Neemri, Jaipur City was published in the Gazette on the date of incident. Therefore, Ravindra Nath Singh made an endorsement on written report Ex. PI and sent the same to SHO, PS Brahampuri for registration of the case, through Rajpal Constable. PW 17 Jeewan Singh, SHO, PS Brahmpuri drew formal FIR Ex. P9 and sent the same to PW 19 Anil Kumar Jain, CO., Kotwali,








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top