Back
2014 Supreme(Jhk) 724
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
D.N. Patel, P.P. Bhatt, JJ.
Nirmal Kumar Jha & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 145 of 2004
Decided on: 16th July, 2014
For the Appellants: M/s Kailash Prasad Deo, Aashish Kumar,
Ritesh, Rakesh Kumar, Advocates
For the State : Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, A.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that every demand for money does not amount to dowry unless it is in connection with the marriage, as emphasized by the court.
Headnote:
Dowry Death - Indian Penal Code - Section 304B, Section 498A
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was killed for dowry by her husband and in-laws.
Finding of the Court:
The court found major omissions, contradictions, and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of cash and kind beyond reasonable doubt. The court allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellants from the charges.
Issues: The issues included inconsistencies in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, failure to prove the demand of cash and kind, and contradictions in the evidence regarding the demand for dowry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that every demand for money does not amount to dowry unless it is in connection with the marriage. It cited previous judgments to support the requirement of a causal connection between the demand and the marriage.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, acquitting the appellants from the charges.
D.N. Patel, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 143 of 1999 dated 24th December, 2003 whereby, these appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant no.1 has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and appellant nos. 2 to 4 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304B and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
Case of the Prosecution:
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.07.1999 at 11.30 a.m. the informant Anil Chandra Thakur (P.W.II) gave fardbeyan to police that on 14.03.1994 his daughter Swarnlata Devi (deceased) was married with Nirmal Kumar Jha (accused) according to Hindu rites and customs and second marriage (Duragaman) of the informant daughter took place in the year 1995. Thereafter, husband of the deceased, father-in-law, mother-in-law and her two brother-in-laws started harassing the daughter of the deceased for demand of dowry in various ways and for dowry Nirmal Kumar Jha has written many letters to the informant. Thereafter, on 03.05.1999, the informant with his son Bipin Chandra Thakur went to the village Haripur to brought his daughter, but, her-in-laws (Sasural) family members did not allow her to go. Then there was a sitting with the villagers in which Nirmal Kumar Jha and his mother and father had told them that they will keep Swarnlata Devi properly. On 25.07.1999, Chintamani Kapri of village Haripur came to his house and told him that his daughter Swarnlata Devi has died this morning. After hearing about the death of his daughter, informant alongwith his son Bipin Chandra Thakur and with his wife went to village Haripur and saw the dead body of his daughter Swarnlata. After seeing her body informant found injury marks on the body, hand, neck, leg, lip and back of his daughter and those injury marks, inflicted on his daughter body were caused by assault committed by his daughter's husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and her two brother-in-laws. The informant further alleged that his daughter Swarnlata Devi was killed for dowry by (1) Nirmal Kumar Jha, (2) Sahdeo Jha, (3) wife of Sahdeo Jha, (4) Hemant Kumar Jha, (5) Suman Kumar Jha.
Witnesses:
3. Following twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution:-
| PW1 | Chintamani Kapri | Declared hostile witness |
| PW2 | Raghuveer Rawat | Declared hostile witness |
| P.W3 | Sanjay Kumar Kamti | Declared hostile witness |
| PW4 | Ashok Kumar Jha | Declared hostile witness. He has proved his signature in the Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.5/1 |
| P.W.5 | Radhakant Jha | Declared Hostile witness |
| P.W.6 | Niranjan Sikandar | Declared Hostile witness. He has proved his signature in the Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.5 |
| P.W.7 | Bulbul Devi | She is the mother of the deceased Swarnlata Devi. She deposed that her daughter was harassed for dowry by Nirmal Jha. |
| P.W.8 | Bipin Chandra Thakur | He is the brother of the deceased Swarnlata Devi. He has proved the two letters in the handwriting and signature of Nirmal Kumar Jha i.e. marked as Ext.1 and 1/1. |
| P.W.9 | Krishan Prasad Mistry | Declared Hostile witness. |
| P.W.10 | Dr. Kula Nand Choudhary | He is the Doctor who has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Swarnlata Devi with Dr. Ashok Kumar and has proved the postmortem report i.e. marked as |
