Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 1138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA AND J.K. RANKA, JJ.
Hanuman Sahai and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 857 of 2010
Decided On : 29-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pradeep Choudhary
For the Respondents: Aladeen Khan, Public Prosecutor
In cases of dowry death, the court must consider the circumstances surrounding the crime, the conduct of the accused, and the mitigating circumstances, in order to determine the appropriate sentence.
Headnote:
DOWRY DEATH - SECTION 304B IPC - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - PRESUMPTION - INGREDIENTS - DEMAND OF DOWRY - CRUELTY - UNNATURAL DEATH - SECTION 113B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 302 IPC - SECTION 498A IPC - SENTENCING - PRINCIPLES - MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES - EXTREME CASES - RARE CASES - MAXIMUM SENTENCE - LIFE IMPRISONMENT - REDUCTION OF SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of a woman named Radha, who was married to Hanuman Sahai. The prosecution alleged that Radha was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws for dowry, and that she eventually died due to consumption of organochloro insecticide. The trial court convicted Hanuman Sahai and his mother Naina Devi for offences under Sections 302, 498A, and 120B IPC, but acquitted their co-accused Ramjilal. The accused appealed their convictions and sentences.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the trial court had erred in not framing a charge against the accused for the offence under Section 304B IPC (dowry death). The court held that there was sufficient evidence to establish that Radha had died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage, that she had been subjected to harassment and cruelty for dowry, and that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also found that the demand for dowry was predominantly for the benefit of the husband, Hanuman Sahai.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in not framing a charge against the accused for the offence under Section 304B IPC (dowry death). 2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that Radha had died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage, that she had been subjected to harassment and cruelty for dowry, and that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. Whether the demand for dowry was predominantly for the benefit of the husband, Hanuman Sahai.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court had erred in not framing a charge against the accused for the offence under Section 304B IPC (dowry death). The court noted that there was sufficient evidence to establish that Radha had died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage, that she had been subjected to harassment and cruelty for dowry, and that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. The court also found that the demand for dowry was predominantly for the benefit of the husband, Hanuman Sahai, as it was for a motorcycle, which is typically used by men. 3. The court relied on the principles of sentencing laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2014) 4 SCC 375, and Hari Om v. State of Haryana and Another [Cr. Appeal No. 1167/2011 decided on 31.10.2014], and held that the maximum sentence of life imprisonment for offence under Section 304B IPC was not called for in this case. The court reduced the sentence of Hanuman Sahai from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment.
Final Decision: The High Court altered the conviction of Hanuman Sahai from offence under Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304B IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default thereof he shall undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The court acquitted Naina Devi of offence under Section 302/34 IPC, but upheld her conviction and sentence for offence under Section 498A IPC.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. Case before us is a strange case where the trial court by throwing the rule of caution to wind, had not formulated charge against the accused for offence under Section 304B IPC. The court below had formulated three charges against appellants husband Hanuman Sahai and mother-in-law Smt. Naina Devi for offences under Sections 302, 498A and 120B IPC.
2. The first charge framed against the accused stated that they on 24.9.2009 at about 6.46 PM caused death of Radha Devi in their house and thus, committed offence under Section 302 IPC. The second charge framed against both the accused was that they harassed and inflicted cruelty upon Radha Devi w/o Hanuman Sahai and daughter-in-law of Naina Devi for demand of dowry and thus, committed offence under Section 498A IPC. The third charge stated that accused Hanuman Sahai and Naina Devi conspired with Ramjilal to cause death of Radha Devi.
3. We are informed that Chhotulal, father-in-law, and Sita, sister-in-law, were not apprehended and were declared proclaimed offenders. They were subsequently tried and were acquitted by the trial court for offences under Section 302/120B IPC. However, they were convicted for offence under Section 498A IPC.
4. After formulation of above charges, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur proceeded with the trial against husband Hanuman Sahai, mother-in-law Naina Devi and neighbour Ramjilal. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 18.8.2010 acquitted Ramjilal neighbour for offences under Sections 498A/120B and 302/120B IPC, Hanuman Sahai and Naina Devi for offence under Section 120B IPC were also acquitted. However, the trial court convicted husband Hanuman Sahai and mother-in-law Naina Devi for causing death of Radha Devi for offences under Sections 302/34 and 498A IPC. The trial court vide separate order of even date had sentenced the accused appellants as under:--
"U/s. 498A IPC: Two years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment each.
U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment each.
Sentences awarded to the accused-appellants were ordered to run concurrently."
5. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Hanuman Sahai husband and Naina Devi mother-in-law have preferred the present appeal.
6. Criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of written report (Ex. P.1) submitted by Faili Ram (P.W.1) grandfather of deceased Radha to Circle Inspector Shiv Kumar Bharadwaj (P.W.12) who on 25.9.2009 was posted as SHO, Police Station Bassi. On the basis of written report (Ex. P.1), formal FIR (Ex. P.10) bearing FIR No. 515/09 was registered at Police Station Bassi, District Jaipur for offences under Sections 498A, 304B IPC.
7. Faili Ram (P.W.1) in his written report (Ex. P.1) stated that his grand-daughter Radha was married with Hanuman Sahai Kumhar S/o. Chhote Lal on 5th of December, 2002. Gauna ceremony was performed after five years of marriage. During her stay in matrimonial home, Radha used to visit her parental house. Whenever she visited she used to complain that her in-laws including mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and husband used to ill-treat her and demand dowry. It was stated in the written report (Ex. P.1) that two months before her death when Radha came to her parental house, she wept and disclosed that in-laws are demanding motorcycle. It is stated that sometime before death when Chhotelal father-in-law came to take back Radha from parental house to matrimonial home, he had asked mother of Radha to satisfy the demand conveyed through Radha. It is stated that on 24.9.2009 in the evening at about 6.46 PM an information was relayed on mobile phone of brother of Radha by Ramjilal Sharma Sanjhi (partner for sharing crop) that Radha is in coma and therefore, they shou
