Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ratnaker Bhengra, Sanjay Prasad, JJ.
Faguni Thakur, wife of late Ghanshyam Thakur - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 34 of 2020
Decided On : 22-03-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 304B and 302 - Acquittal of accused for dowry death - The court found no evidence supporting the prosecution's claims of dowry demand or foul play in the death of the deceased, leading to the conclusion that the acquittal was justified. (Paras 19, 20)
(B) Evidence - The testimonies of independent witnesses indicated a good relationship between the deceased and her in-laws, and the cause of death was determined to be accidental drowning due to a broken wooden log. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from the acquittal of the accused in a dowry death case, where the deceased was found dead in a well shortly after being taken home by her in-laws. The prosecution alleged dowry demands, but evidence suggested an accidental death.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the acquittal, finding no evidence of dowry harassment or foul play, and concluded that the death was accidental.
Issues: The main issues were whether the death was due to dowry-related violence and the credibility of the witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence supported the conclusion of accidental death.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.12.2019 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge- VIII, Giridih in ST No. 212 of 2015, arising out of Ahilyapur PS Case No. 26 of 2014, GR No. 1772 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted for the offence under sections 304B/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case as per written report of the informant PW-3 Faguni Devi is that her daughter Laxmi Devi was married to Pradeep Thakur five years ago and lived happily for some days. But, thereafter, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law started assaulting and torturing her daughter for dowry. Accused persons demanded Rs. 2 lakhs cash and ornaments and threatened that if demand is not fulfilled, they will not allow her to live in the matrimonial house. Informant further stated that suddenly on 08.06.2014, in the evening at 5 p.m. accused persons came to her home with her daughter and told that her daughter fell into the well. Informant further stated that daughter was taken to the doctor, but doctor declared her dead.
4. On the basis of written report of the informant Ahilyapur PS case no. 26 of 2014 dated 09.06. 2014 was registered under section 304(B) of IPC against the respondents. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the respondents under sections 304B/34 and 302/34 of IPC and trial was held. At the conclusion of the trial, respondents were acquitted of the charges, hence, this appeal.
5. Prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses out of whom PW-3 Faguni Devi is the informant of the case and mother of the deceased;PW-1 Aarti Devi, is the sister of the deceased; PW-2 is Dharmjit Prasad; PW-4 is Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased;PW-5 is Bhunna Mandal;PW-6 is Ashok Yadav; PW-7 is Chhotu Kumar Mandal; PW-8 Raju Kumar Mandal, is hostile witness; PW-9 is Gyanendra Sharma, Who is investigating officer of the case; PW-10 is Ratilal Marandi;PW-11 is Prabhu Hansda @ Marandi and PW-12 is Lalita Kumari, who is sister-in- law of the deceased.
6. PW-3 Faguni Devi is the informant of the case and mother of the deceased. Informant has stated in her evidence that her daughter Laxmi Devi was married to Pradeep Thakur five years ago and she led a happy life in her matrimonial home for about one year. But, thereafter, husband of her daughter, father-in-law and mother-in-law started demanding money and ornaments. She did not fulfill the demand then they killed her daughter and came to her home with her daughter and then her daughter was taken to Bengabad for treatment where her daughter was declared dead. In her cross-examination informant has stated that one month prior to the occurrence she had gone to the matrimonial home of her daughter. Informant further stated that her son-in-law had demanded money from her daughter, before the death of her daughter.
7. PW-1 Aarti Devi is the sister of the deceased. PW-1 has stated in her evidence that her sister Laxmi was married to Pradeep Thakur seven years ago. She lived peacefully in her matrimonial home for two years. But, thereafter, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law started torturing her. Her father had given 02 decimal land to Pradeep Thakur, in spite of that they started demanding Rs. 50,000/-. Her sister used to tell that the accused persons had assaulted her. On 08.06.2014, the accused persons took her to Bengabad, where she was declared dead by the doctor. In her cross-examination PW-1 has stated that she cannot tell the date of demand of Rs. 50,000/-.
8. PW-4 is Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Doctor had found-
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused, finding no evidence of dowry harassment or foul play, concluding the death was accidental.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry to establish a case under Section 304B IPC; mere suspicion is insufficient for convic....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations without corroborative evidence are insufficient for conviction.
A conviction under IPC Sections 498-A and 304-B requires clear evidence of a direct link between cruelty and the death, which was not proven in this case.
The court upheld that the prosecution failed to establish key elements of dowry harassment and death within seven years, maintaining the presumption of innocence for the accused.
Dowry death conviction under IPC Section 304B requires proof of cruelty/harassment for dowry demand soon before death to attract Evidence Act Section 113B presumption; mere presence at scene insuffic....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must conclusively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any gaps can benefit the accused.
Continuous demand of dowry and torture leading to the death of the deceased proved the ingredients of dowry death under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution must prove demand for dowry and harassment soon before death to establish guilt under Section 304B IPC; absence of such evidence leads to acquittal.
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
