Back
2002 Supreme(Jhk) 398
High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, LAKSHMANA RAO
ARBIND KUMAR AMBASTA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL 123 Of 1991
Decided On : 03/21/2002
HEMANT SIKARVAR, S.N.Rajgarhia
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of establishing the period of marriage for punishment under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and granting the accused the benefit of doubt in case of a dispute over the period of marriage.
Headnote:
Dowry - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 304 (B) - Summary of the case law discussed in the judgment: The court analyzed the case in light of Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, which requires the death of a woman caused by burns or bodily injury within seven years of marriage and due to cruelty or harassment for dowry. The court referred to the case of Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226, which laid down the essentials of Section 304-B and the definition of 'cruelty' and 'dowry' as per the Indian Penal Code and the Evidence Act. The court emphasized the importance of establishing the period of marriage for punishment under Section 304 (B) and granted the accused the benefit of doubt due to the dispute over the period of marriage.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Rina Devi, was married to Arbind Kumar Ambasta about six years prior to her death. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded dowry and subjected Rina to cruelty, ultimately leading to her death. The trial court framed two issues, including the demand for dowry and the establishment of the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a dispute regarding the period of marriage, and the evidence presented did not establish a specific period. As a result, the accused were granted the benefit of doubt, and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code were set aside, leading to the discharge of the appellants.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the demand for dowry and the establishment of the charge under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the court addressed the contradictory statements regarding the period of marriage and the lack of specific evidence to support the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing the period of marriage for punishment under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and granted the accused the benefit of doubt due to the dispute over the period of marriage. The court also highlighted the lack of evidence to support a charge under Section 302 (murder) and declined to remand the case for trial under that provision.
Final Decision: The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23/03/1991, passed in Sessions Trial No. 399 of 1989, were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellants were discharged from their liabilities, and the appellant in custody was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. :-, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of conviction for the offence under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment dated 23/03/1991 passed in Sessions Trial No. 399 of 1989.
( 2 ) BEFORE dealing with the case of prosecution and other evidence, it is desirable to mention the relationship between the deceased and appellants, as stated hereunder.
( 3 ) RINA Devi (deceased) was the wife of Arbind Kumar Ambasta (A. 1 ). Basudeo Narain Ambasta (A. 2) was the father-in-law of deceased, whereas Shanti Devi (A. 3) was the mother-in-law of deceased, i. e. parents of Arbind Kumar Ambasta (A. 1 ). The informant Nand Kishore Prasad was the father of Rina Devi (deceased ).
( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, as was given in the Fardbeyan by informant Nand Kishore Prasad (P. W. 7) before the police on 19/04/1989 that his daughter Rina Devi was married with Arbind Kumar Ambasta (A. 1), son of Basudeo Narain Ambasta (A. 2) about five years back. At the time of marriage, he had given a cash of Rs. 15,000. 00, a golden ring, wrist-watch, tape recorder etc. as dowry. After the marriage, Rina was living in the house of in-laws (Sasural) and led conjugal life with her husband for quite some time. The trouble started when the husband Arbind Kumar Ambasta (A. 1) and the in-laws (A. 2 and 3) started torturing her in different manner and assaulted her on many dates. Even she was assaulted by husband and in-laws sometimes in presence of informant and it was alleged that a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 was demanded from the informant so that the accused Arbind Kumar Ambasta (A. 1) can obtain some employment. As the informant could not fulfil the demand, Rina Devi was further subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws. It is also alleged that Rina Devi was asked to leave the house of the in-laws twice, but on the request of the informant, she was allowed to remain in the house of the in-laws with her husband. The informant further alleged that he could come to know that Rina Devi was brutally assaulted in recent past and having come to know, the informant went to the house of her in-laws (Sasural) on 2/04/1989, when she was again assaulted in his presence by her husband and in-laws (A. 1, 2 and 3 ). The informant further stated that on the alleged date of occurrence i. e. 18/04/1989, when he was going to attend his duty, he was informed by a person from Sinodih that his daughter Rina Devi died. On receiving information, when the informant went to the house of in-laws of his daughter Rina Devi, found the daughter Rina Devi lying dead with scratches on both of her wrists with broken bangles scattered near her body. The informant claimed that the accused (appellants herein) committed crime and murdered Rina Devi.
( 5 ) ON the basis of Fardbeyan (Ext. . 1/2), the police drawn F. I. R. against the accused under Section 304 (B), I. P. C. , investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet under the aforesaid section against the appellants. The learned C. J. M. committed the case to the Court of Session on 4/08/1989 under Section 304 (B), which was tried by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih.
( 6 ) THE learned trial Court framed two issues, as quoted hereunder and held the appellants guilty of the charge under Section 304 (B) of the I. P. C. 1) As to whether the accused persons demanded dowry in the manner as alleged, 2) And whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts.
( 7 ) BEFORE discussing the evidence of one or other witnesses and statement of accused (appellants herein) given under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , it is desirable to take into consideration the ingredients of Section 304 (B), I. P. C.
( 8 ) ACCORDING to the counsel for the appellants, in a case under Section 304 (B), I. P. C. , certain conditions are required to be established like dea
