Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Raj) 1235

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.S.Chauhan, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, JJ.
Pooja & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 2005 with D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 643 of 2005.
Decided On : 17-01-2015

For the Appellant:Rinesh Gupta with Chandrakala, Advocates.
For the State: N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor.

The term 'soon before death' in Section 304-B IPC cannot be defined in exact words and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It implies that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - DOWRY DEATH - SECTION 304-B IPC - DEMAND OF DOWRY - SOON BEFORE DEATH - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 498-A IPC - CRUELTY - SECTION 201 IPC - DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE - RELIANCE ON FIR - INFERENCE OF DEMAND OF DOWRY - SPECIFIC ROLES OF ACCUSED - BENEFIT OF DOUBT - LESSER OFFENCE - SENTENCE MODIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the death of Seema, a young woman who died within two years of her marriage to Pooja, one of the appellants. The prosecution alleged that Seema's death was a result of dowry harassment and cruelty by her in-laws, including Pooja, his brother Kamlesh, their mother Smt. Savitri, and their father Balmukund. The prosecution presented evidence of demand for dowry, harassment, and cruelty, including a Panchayat meeting held to address the issue. The defense, on the other hand, denied the allegations and claimed that Seema's death was not related to dowry.
Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the evidence presented by both sides and found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants, except Pooja, were involved in the demand of dowry or in causing cruelty to Seema. The court noted that the neighbors and other witnesses had not corroborated the prosecution's case and that the specific roles attributed to each of the accused in the FIR were not supported by the evidence. However, the court found that Pooja was responsible for the demand of dowry and that he had caused harassment and cruelty to Seema.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants, except Pooja, were involved in the demand of dowry or in causing cruelty to Seema. 2. Whether the appellants were guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death). 3. Whether the appellants were guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC (cruelty). 4. Whether the appellants were guilty of the offence under Section 201 IPC (disappearance of evidence).
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants, except Pooja, were involved in the demand of dowry or in causing cruelty to Seema. The court noted that the neighbors and other witnesses had not corroborated the prosecution's case and that the specific roles attributed to each of the accused in the FIR were not supported by the evidence. 2. The court held that Pooja was guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death) as he was responsible for the demand of dowry and had caused harassment and cruelty to Seema. 3. The court held that the appellants, except Pooja, were guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC (cruelty) as they were responsible for causing harassment and cruelty to Seema and Jamna for demand of dowry. 4. The court held that the appellants were guilty of the offence under Section 201 IPC (disappearance of evidence) as they had caused the disappearance of Seema's dead body.
Final Decision: 1. The court dismissed the appeal of Pooja and upheld his conviction for the offence under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death) and Section 201 IPC (disappearance of evidence). The court maintained the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Pooja. 2. The court acquitted Kamlesh, Bachchu Singh, and Smt. Savitri of the offence under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death) and convicted them for the offence under Section 498-A IPC (cruelty). The court sentenced them to one year and nine months' imprisonment under Section 498-A IPC. 3. The court upheld the conviction of Kamlesh, Bachchu Singh, and Smt. Savitri for the offence under Section 201 IPC (disappearance of evidence) and reduced the sentence of two years awarded to them to one year and nine months, while maintaining the sentence of fine and default thereof.

JUDGMENT

1. (Oral) - Pooja, Kamlesh, Bachchu Singh sons of Balmukund and their mother Smt. Savitri, have been convicted vide impugned judgment dated 23.4.2005, for offence under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC by the court of Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Dholpur. Vide separate order of even date, all the appellants were sentenced as under:-

U/s. 304-B IPC- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years' S.I.

U/s. 201 IPC- to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' S.I.

2. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 461/2005. A separate appeal on behalf of the appellants was also received from the Jail and the same was assigned docket no. D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 643/2005. Since in both the appeals, the same appellants have challenged the same impugned judgment, we shall club both the appeals and decide them together.

3. Anta Ram (P.W.17), the complainant was married with Ramsnehi (P.W.19); six daughters were born out of their wedlock. Two daughters, namely Jamna (P.W.18) and Seema (the deceased), were married to two brothers, namely Kamlesh and Pooja, the appellants no. 2 and 1, respectively. Kamlesh was married with Jamna (P.W.18) about nine years before the occurrence, whereas, second daughter Seema, (the deceased) was married with Pooja, two years before the occurrence.

4. In the present case, we are concerend with the unnatural death of Seema, who died within two years of her marriage with Pooja. The cause of death, as per Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/26) and in the opinion of Doctor B.N. Singh Tomar (P.W.24), who had conducted autopsy, is asphyxia due to throttling, accompanied by injuries on person of deceased Seema.

5. The prosecution in all had examined twenty-five witnesses. Most of the witnesses, who are neighbours of the accused, have turned hostile. The prosecution case regarding demand of dowry to attract ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC rests on the testimony of Hubb Lal (P.W.14), Fufa of the deceased (husband of paternal aunt of the deceased), Anta Ram (P.W.17), father of the deceased, Smt. Jamna (P.W.18), sister of the deceased, and Ramsnehi (P.W.19), the mother of the deceased.

6. Jamna (P.W.18), the wife of the appellant Kamlesh claims herself to be an eyewitness (to the causing of injuries to the deceased Seema). She is the star witness of the prosecution. Having noted broad features of the case, we proceed to notice the contents of the FIR (Exhibit-P/17) lodged by Anta Ram (P.W.17).

7. In the statement made before the police, leading to registration of the case, Anta Ram (P.W.17) stated that he is resident of Bholaram Ka Pura, Police Station Dimni, District Muraina, Madhya Pradesh. His daughters Jamna and Seema were married in village Bhuda with Kamlesh and Pooja sons of Balmukund, respectively. Elder daughter, Jamna was married nine years ago and she is mother of one daughter. Younger daughter, Seema was married about two years ago and she has not given birth to any child. It was stated in the statement that at the time of marriage of Seema, he had given dowry beyond his capacity. But, still the son-in-law, Pooja was demanding gold chain (lksus dh yM), upon which he gave an assurance that currently he was not in a position to satisfy the demand, but he will do the needful at a later stage. It was stated by the complainant that on this assurance, his daughter Seema was kept well, but seven and a half months or eight months before, Pooja, Kamlesh and Bachchu Singh sons of Balmukund started harassing his daughter and used to beat her. On hearing that daughter Seema is being subjected to cruelty, the complainant approached Mukhiya of the village Bhuda and Chokharia Mallah residents of Kuthiana and gathered a Panchayat. People of the village and Chokharia gave

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(Raj) 1235

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHR.S.Chauhan, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, JJ.Pooja & Ors. - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentD.B. Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 2005 with D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 643 of 2005.Decided On : 17-01-2015

The term 'soon before death' in Section 304-B IPC cannot be defined in exact words and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It implies that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question.

Cases Referred (4)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.S.Chauhan, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, JJ.
Pooja & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 2005 with D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 643 of 2005.
Decided On : 17-01-2015