Back
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Janak Raj Kotwal, J.
Arjun Katal & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
Petition Under Section 561-A No. 472/2015, MP No. 01/2015 c/w Bail Application No. 101/2015
Decided On : 20-04-2016
Dowry Death - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 498-A, 304-B, 306 RPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of section 304-B RPC and the interpretation of 'soon before her death' in relation to cruelty or harassment for dowry. The court also considered the presumption of causing dowry death under section 114-CC of the Evidence Act and its applicability at different stages of the trial. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the standard for framing charges and the standard for refusing bail under section 497-C(1) of the Code.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved charges under Section 498-A, 304-B, and 306 RPC against the accused for the death of the deceased, who was allegedly harassed for dowry. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws for dowry, leading to her death. The accused contended that there was no proximate and live link between any act of cruelty and the death of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient ground for framing charges against the accused under the aforementioned sections. The court emphasized that the standard of proof at the stage of framing charges is different from that at the time of final judgment. The court also noted the distinction between the investigation stage and the trial stage in criminal cases.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused for the alleged offences, particularly under section 304-B RPC, and whether the accused were entitled to bail under section 497-C(1) of the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the restriction under proviso to section 497-C(1) was not attracted as there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused was 'prima facie true'. The court also emphasized the presumption of innocence and the need to balance personal liberty and public interest in granting or refusing bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition under section 561-A of the Code and granted bail to the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, while refusing bail to the husband. The court remitted the record of the trial court back with instructions for further proceedings.
1. Learned trial court vide order dated 07.09.2015 has framed charges under Section 498-A, 304-B and 306 RPC against accused persons, herein petitioners, in Sessions case No. 41 of 2015 arising in FIR No. 35/2015 of Police Station, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu. Petitioners seek quashing of the FIR and setting aside and quashing of order dated 07.09.2015 by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Code) or in alternative the revisional jurisdiction. By another application petitioners, except Ravinder Kotwal, seek release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Petition under section 561-A No. 472/2015 MP No. 01/2015
3. Prosecution story, briefly, is that one Neha Naraina (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married to petitioner No. 1, Arjun Katal, on 19.11.2012. On 28.03.2015 her father, PW Rajinder Singh, lodged written information at Police Post, Sarwal stating that the mother of the deceased has received a telephone call from the deceased saying that she was at Akhnoor and was going to end her life as ever since her marriage her in-laws had been harassing and causing mental torture to her for demand of dowry. He stated further in that information that whereabouts of his daughter are not known. On this information FIR No. 35/2015 under section 498-A RFC was registered. On 29.03.2005 dead body of the deceased was found in river Chenab and after its postmortem examination offence under section 306 RPC was added to the FIR. After investigation it was found that on the demand of the petitioners the father of the deceased had given dowry worth fifteen-twenty lac rupees at the time of the marriage of his daughter. However, few days after the marriage the petitioners had started beating and harassing the deceased for bringing more dowry. They had demanded cash worth five lac rupees from her parents. They used to confine the deceased in a room, keep her hungry and away from her child and used to beat her. On 27.03.2015 deceased had gone to her parents' house. Her husband, Arjun Katal, had also come there and misbehaved with her and her parents for and in connection with the demand of dowry and threatened them before leaving their house. Because of the threatening by her husband the deceased returned to her house. All the four petitioners gave her beating in a cruel manner inasmuch as their cruelty got out of her capacity of tolerance. The Investigating Officer, thus, concluded that deceased was an educated girl belonging to a gentle family. She never wanted to be a burden on her parents because of harassment and demands of dowry by her in-laws nor was she in a position to tolerate the harassment by her in-laws. She ultimately was compelled to end her life and her dead body was fished out from river Chenab on 29.03.2015. Charge sheet for commission of offence under section 498-A, 304-B and 306 RPC was, thus, filed against the petitioners by the police.
4. It is contended by the petitioners that after their marriage in the year 2012, the deceased and her husband had been living a happy married life and their marriage had procreated a child. There never had been any complaint about commission of any domestic violence by the petitioners and there is no proximate and live link between any act of cruelty said to have been committed by the petitioners for demand of dowry and death of the deceased. It is contended that learned trial judge has framed the charges without considering the material produced by the prosecution inasmuch as there is nothing in the material collected by the I.O. sufficient to connect the petitioners with any demand of dowry or cruelty to the deceased and no prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioners for commission of any offence is made out.
5. Mr. P.N. Raina, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, in his submissions, mainly, assailed the charge under section 304-B RPC. Reading out to the
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
