Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Birendra Kumar, J.
Ashok Kumar S/o Nihal Singh and ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 590/2024
Decided On : 30-09-2024
Dowry - IPC - 498-A, 304-B - The court interpreted Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, emphasizing the need for evidence of dowry demand and torture, establishing a presumption of guilt under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, leading to the conviction of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for dowry-related offences after the victim, married less than a year, died under suspicious circumstances following persistent dowry demands and torture by the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of the victim's family credible, corroborated by medical evidence, establishing a link between the dowry demands and the victim's death.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the demand for dowry and the consequent torture leading to the victim's death within seven years of marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of dowry demand and torture, even if not immediately before death, suffices to establish the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
Result: The appeal is dismissed with a modified sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Birendra Kumar, J.
1. Heard the Parties.
2. The appellants faced trial in Sessions Case No.30/2019 for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC. By the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2024, they were found guilty for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The learned trial Judge awarded ten years’ rigorous imprisonment against the appellants for offence under Section 304-B IPC along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months’ simple imprisonment was ordered. For offence under Section 498-A IPC, the appellants were convicted with three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months’ simple imprisonment was directed. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case as disclosed in FIR No.229/2019 registered with Police Station Bhirani (Ex.P/1) is that the victim was married with appellant No.1-Ashok Kumar on 09.11.2018. Though, marriage gift were given by the family members of the girl. However, there was persistent demand of dowry of rupees one lack in cash. This demand was being made continuously after the marriage. The informant-Nathu Ram (PW-1), who is father of the victim has stated that out of the aforesaid demand, he had paid Rs.11,000/- to appellant No.2. PW-2 Mukesh Kumar, son of PW-1 Nathhu Ram stated that the said amount was paid in the month of March 2019. However, the demand continued and for non-fulfillment of the demand, torture was persisting. The victim used to inform her parents and brother, whenever, she visited her parents house or even on telephone that she was assaulted by the family members for non-fulfillment of the demand.
4. According to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 Maya Devi, the mother of the victim, on the occasion of Rakshabhandan, the victim along with her husband had come to their house on 15.08.2019 and the victim had complained about the demand and torture, but the family members consoled her that whenever they would be capable, would pay the money. On the same day, the victim and her husband returned back to the matrimonial house. On 18.08.2019, the incident of unnatural death of the victim took place and the FIR was lodged on 19.08.2019.
5. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether 15 witnesses. PW-1 Nathu Ram has categorically supported about the demand of dowry and torture for the same soon before death. PW-2 Mukesh Kumar is also specific that the deceased used to convey him about demand and torture whenever she visited his house or even on telephone from her matrimonial house. This witness is specific that even appellant No.1 had demanded dowry from him. PW-3 Jagir Singh is witness of inquest, PW-4 Balbir was mediator in the marriage, which has been admitted by DW-1 appellant Ashok Kumar. The prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 had reported the demand and torture to PW-4 also, but in Court, PW-4 has turned hostile. The reason may be that he was relation of both the parties since prior to marriage of the deceased. PW-7 Doctor Sunita Sharma had examined the external injury on the person of the deceased and has reported some injuries on the upper portion of body of the deceased. PW-8 Sanjay Kumar is a formal witness. She had carried the viscera for FSL examination. PW-9 Doctor Satbir Singh had performed post-mortem on 19.08.2019 itself. He reported that the death was within 48 hours. Blood was oozing out from the mouth of the deceased.
6. On the basis of FSL report vide (Ex.P-12) and Pathological report vide (EX.P-13), it was opined that oregano-phosphorous, a pesticides was found in the viscera of the deceased. PW-10 Mahendra Singh and PW-12 Chandra Bhan are formal witnesses, who have proved documents. PW-11 Atar Kumar is Investigating Officer of the case, who has supported the prosecution case.
7. PW-13 Doctor Sujata had deposed that when the victim was brought to the hospital, she was already dead. The attendant accompanying her, disclosed that the victim ha
The court affirmed that dowry death can be established through evidence of demand and torture, even if not immediately preceding death, under IPC Sections 498-A and 304-B.
Continuous demand of dowry and torture leading to the death of the deceased proved the ingredients of dowry death under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
In dowry death cases, prosecution must prove unnatural death within seven years of marriage with cruelty/harassment soon before by husband/relatives linked to dowry demand to raise rebuttable presump....
Dowry death and cruelty – For attracting Section 113-B of Evidence Act, prosecution must establish that deceased was subjected by appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any dema....
Prosecution must prove demand for dowry and harassment soon before death to establish guilt under Section 304B IPC; absence of such evidence leads to acquittal.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, establishing that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry demands, leading to her suicide, thus satisfying the legal requirements fo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
