Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1424
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sabina and Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Madanlal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2013
Decided On : 23-07-2019
Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Advocate, Rajesh Choudhary, Advocate, Javed Chaudhary, Advocate
The presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act arises when it is shown that a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the accused to show that they did not cause the death.
Headnote:
DOWRY DEATH - SECTION 304B IPC - SECTION 113B INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - PRESUMPTION OF DOWRY DEATH - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR DOWRY DEATH UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased Asha died within five months of her marriage due to organophosphorous poisoning. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, her husband and father-in-law, subjected her to cruelty and harassment for dowry, leading to her death. The trial court convicted and sentenced the husband for murder and both appellants for causing her death by causing grievous hurt.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution proved that the husband subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment for dowry soon before her death. It held that the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was raised and the husband was deemed to have caused her death.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved that the husband subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment for dowry soon before her death? 2. Whether the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was raised?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the testimonies of the deceased's parents and other witnesses to establish that the husband subjected her to cruelty and harassment for dowry. It noted that the deceased had complained about the harassment to her parents and that the husband had demanded cash from her. 2. The court held that the essential ingredients of Section 113B were satisfied, as the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry soon before her death. It found that the presumption of dowry death was raised, and the husband was deemed to have caused her death.
Final Decision: The High Court partly allowed the husband's appeal, convicting and sentencing him for dowry death under Section 304B IPC instead of murder. It acquitted the father-in-law of the charge of causing grievous hurt.
JUDGMENT
Goverdhan Bardhar, J. - Challenge in the instant criminal appeal has been made by the appellants to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.07.2013 passed by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dausa (Rajasthan) [for short 'the learned trial Court'] in Sessions Case No. 18/2012, State of Rajasthan Vs. Madan Lal & Ors., whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-
U/s. 302 IPC (Appellant Madan Lal):
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo seven days additional imprisonment.
U/s. 201 IPC (Both the appellants):
Three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three days additional imprisonment.
Sentences of appellant Madan Lal were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that complainant PW1-Ramlal s/o Ghasiram, by caste Bairwa, aged 60 years, resident of Village Nihalpura Dhani Bassidaran, Tehsil Sikrai, Police Station Sikandara, District Dausa, submitted a written report (Ex.P1) on 03.07.2011 to the SHO, Police Station Dausa Sadar to the effect that he solemnized the marriage of his daughter Asha with Madan Lal son of Kanhaiyalal Bairwa on 13.02.2011. In the marriage, as per his capacity, he gave motor-cycle, T.V., Fridge, Washing Machine, Fan, Cooler, jewellery, amounting to Rs.2,11,000/- in dowry. Soon after the marriage her in-laws namely; husband Madan Lal, Jeth- Sitaram, Jethani- Rajanti, JethRajendra and Jethani- Barfi started to harass and humiliate her and used to give beatings to her. Asha was having pregnancy of 3-4 months and whenever she used to come to her parents' house, these persons used to tell her to bring amount in cash. Today on 03.07.2013 at 6:00 A.M. father-in-law of his daughter informed on telephone that condition of his daughter is not good. He reached at the inlaws place and saw that his daughter was lying unconscious. The surrounding circumstances created doubt in his mind that his daughter had been had been administered some poisonous substance or had been caused internal injury as a result of which his daughter expired.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report (Ex.P1) an FIR bearing No. 0245/2011 (Ex.P2) was registered for the offences under sections 498A and 304B IPC. The investigation commenced and after investigation the police filed charge-sheet against accused persons for the offences under sections 498A, 304B and 201 IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dausa from where the case was sent to the trial court for trial court.
4. The learned trial court framed charges against accused appellant for the offences under sections 498A, 304B in the alternative under sections 302 and 201 IPC and against remaining accused persons for the offence under section 201 IPC. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case recorded the statements of twenty one witnesses and fourteen documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He pleaded that prior to death of Asha he lived with her for six hours and with a view to take money, the complainant had lodged the FIR. In defence the appellants produced two witnesses. The learned trial court after considering the evidence led during the course of trial convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants for the charges levelled against them vide impugned judgment/order dated 03.07.2013. The appellants aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence have preferred the instant criminal appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the findings of the trial court are based on unreliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses without any corroboration from the independent source. The FIR has been lodged for the offences under s
