Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Kailash Prasad Deo, J.
Ashraf Ali, S/o Haider Ali – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.367 of 2004
Decided On : 27-11-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate Arpit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Tapas Roy, Additional Public Prosecutor
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act and the need for a cause-and-effect relationship between cruelty and suicide for the presumption to apply.
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Conviction under Section 306 I.P.C. - [Dowry Prohibition Act] - [Section 304B I.P.C., Section 306 I.P.C., Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 306 I.P.C. in a case where the charge was framed under Section 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 of the D.P. Act. It highlighted the need for a cause-and-effect relationship between cruelty and suicide for the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act to apply. The judgment emphasized that the presumption is discretionary and not irrebuttable, and that the accused must be charged under the relevant section for conviction. The court set aside the conviction under Section 306 I.P.C. due to the lack of interrelation between the charged sections.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage, with the appellant being charged under Section 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant was convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code based on the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's conviction under Section 306 I.P.C. was not sustainable due to the lack of interrelation between the charged sections. It emphasized the discretionary nature of the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act and the need for a cause-and-effect relationship between cruelty and suicide for the presumption to apply.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of Section 306 I.P.C. in a case where the charge was framed under Section 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 of the D.P. Act, and the discretionary nature of the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of interrelation between the charged sections and the discretionary nature of the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. It emphasized the need for a cause-and-effect relationship between cruelty and suicide for the presumption to apply.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant under Section 306 I.P.C. and discharged the appellant from the liability of the bail bonds.
Heard, Mr. Rajesh Lala assisted by Mr. Arpit Kumar, learned counsels for the appellant and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 06th February, 2004 and order of sentence, dated 07th February, 2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.91 of 2002, whereby the sole appellant, Ashraf Ali, who has been charged under Sections 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, as the charge under Section 304B I.P.C. has not been proved by the prosecution and awarded to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.500/-and in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, is based upon, the fardbeyan of the informant, Juli Kumari (P.W.3) recorded by V. B. Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, Kenduadih Police Station, Dhanbad, on 06.11.2001 (Tuesday) at 7.30 P.M. The informant has alleged that she got an information from one boy that her sister has committed suicide by hanging. Thereafter the informant hurriedly came to the house of her sister and saw that dead body of her sister lying and several ladies were present, but she could not identify any of them. It is further stated that Ashraf, brother-in-law present there has not disclosed the reason of death. The informant has alleged that brother-in-law (Ashraf) used to quarrel with her sister. They have returned from Pune on 05.11.2001 and since then they were quarreling in which the mother-in-law and father-in-law of her sister were also instigating. It is further alleged in the First Information Report that as the victim has gone to the house of her mother which was incidental reason of the quarreling, but subsequently it is alleged that because of non-payment of dowry, the accused persons have tortured her. The informant has categorically stated that after killing her sister, the brother-in-law has hanged her sister.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of the informant, the Police instituted First Information Report bearing Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 130 of 2001, dated 07.11.2001 corresponding to G.R. No.3193 of 2001 under Sections 304 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. After investigation, the Police has submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No.129 of 2001 dated 30.11.2001 against the sole accused/appellant under Section 304 (B) I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken against accused/appellant vide order dated 03.01.2002 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 19.02.2002.
7. The charge has been framed by the learned trial court on 20.03.2002 against the sole accused/appellant under Section 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, to which the accused/appellant has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thus, he was put under trial.
8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether five prosecution witnesses and also exhibited four documents to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the charged accused/appellant, Ashraf Ali.
Kasim Ansari, father of the deceased has been examined as P.W.1, Md. Mansoor Alam has been examined as P.W.2, Juli Khatoon, informant of the case, has been examined as P.W.3, Bijay Bahadur Singh, investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W.4 and Dr. Shailendra Kumar, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.5 and he has conducted the post -mortem examination of dead body of Hazra Khatoon (deceased).
Signature of the informant in the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, Fardbeyan of the informant has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2
