IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.
Raghubir Singh, son of Late Makhan Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 880 of 2003
Decided on : 19-02-2021
Dowry Prohibition Act - Demand for Rs.40,000 - Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 498-A IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the definition of dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and analyzed the demand for Rs.40,000, concluding that it did not constitute a dowry demand. The court upheld the charge under Section 498-A IPC based on evidence of mental and physical cruelty towards the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint filed by the deceased against her husband and in-laws for torture and demand of Rs.40,000. The deceased later died, and the trial court acquitted all accused except the husband, who was convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 498-A IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the demand for Rs.40,000 was not a dowry demand but a form of torture for giving birth to female children. The court upheld the charge under Section 498-A IPC based on evidence of mental and physical cruelty towards the deceased.
Issues: The main issue was whether the demand for Rs.40,000 constituted a dowry demand under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and whether the husband was guilty of mental and physical cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the demand for Rs.40,000 was not a dowry demand but a form of torture for giving birth to female children. The court upheld the charge under Section 498-A IPC based on evidence of mental and physical cruelty towards the deceased.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 but upheld the conviction under Section 498-A IPC. The appellant was discharged of further custodial sentence due to time already served.
JUDGMENT :
Ratnaker Bhengra, J.
Heard the parties.
2. It is noted that the appellant was not represented either personally or through his counsel on few dates. Thereafter, appellant was noticed and the office notes indicates that notices was also served to him, however, even then nobody had appeared on behalf of the appellant and therefore, Mr. Rajesh Kr. Dubey, Advocate, was appointed as amicus curiae to argue out the case on behalf of the appellant. Mr. G.K. Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant had also appeared. The State is represented by Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned APP.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 05.05.2003 and order of sentence dated 23.05.2003, passed the by learned Additional District &Sessions Judge, FTC-IX, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 511/95 by which learned court-below has been pleased to convict the appellant under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and section 498-A IPC. The appellant was sentenced under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for RI of six months and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of which, he was to undergo SI for 15 days. Further, appellant was sentenced under section 498-A IPC for RI for two years and fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default in making payment of fine he was to undergo SI for a period of 15 days. Learned court below further ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently and the period during which appellant had remained in judicial custody in this case may be set off from aforesaid period of imprisonment.
4. The prosecution case arises out of a complaint case, bearing No. C/1- 130/94 filed by the deceased Dalbir Kaur, the deceased, before the C.J.M. Jamshedpur. Complainant Dalbir Kaur stated in her complain that she was married to accused Raghubir Singh on 23.01.1989 as per Sikh rites and customs. At the time of marriage, father of the complainant gave gold ornament weighing 30 gms, silver ornament weighing 60 gms, 3 steel boxes, clothes, beds and utensils worth about Rs.30,000/- and about Rs. 35,000/- were spent in entertaining the guests and baraat etc. After marriage complainant went to her matrimonial house at Ratu Road, Ranchi where accused Raghubir Singh, Gurnam Kaur (mother-in-law) and Mohan Singh (brother-in-law) were residing. It was alleged that after few days of the marriage the aforesaid three accused persons started torturing the complainant saying that her father was a beggar and he did not give sufficient number of article in the marriage. Complainant used to narrate about the torture meted out to her to her parents but they remained silent hoping that one day or the other everything would be alright. Complainant gave birth to two daughters but after their birth the aforesaid three accused persons started torturing her more saying that she was inauspicious and she even could not give birth to a male child. They even used to beat her and keep her on starvation and asked to fetch at least Rs.40,000/- from her father so that the money can be spent on the marriage of complainant daughters. Complainant further alleged that accused Satto and Munna, who are sisters-in-law of the complainant used to visit their parental house at Ranchi and complainant used to weep before them but they instead of consoling her used to join aforesaid three accused in crushing and beating the complainant for giving birth to two female child and for not bringing the amount of Rs.40,000/- demanded by accused Raghubir Singh, Mohan Singh and Gurnam Kaur. On 22.2.1994 the aforesaid sister-in-law came to her parental home and all the accused persons including the sister-in-law started cursing the complainant for not bringing Rs.40,000/- from her father and on her slight protest they slapped, kicked and turned out the complainant from the matrimonial house with her younger daughter in lap. Thereafter, complainant came to her parental house at Jamshedpur with broken health and depression. She was taken to MGM Medica
Sakhi Mandalani versus State of Bihar &Ors reported in (1999) 5 SCC 705
The main legal point established is that a demand for money can be considered a form of torture rather than a dowry demand, and evidence of mental and physical cruelty can lead to conviction under Se....
Prosecution must clearly establish essential ingredients of dowry-related offences; lack of consistent evidence led to acquittal.
The prosecution must establish the elements of dowry death and the rebuttable nature of the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act in cases involving dowry-related offenses.
To convict under Section 304-B IPC, it must be proven that the victim faced cruelty for dowry-related demands occurring soon before death, which was not established in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that to convict an accused under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connecti....
The absence of evidence supporting a dowry demand negates the conviction under Section 498A unless proven that conduct resulted in cruelty independent of such demands.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.