SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 885

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ananda Sen, Gautam Kumar Choudhary, JJ.
Pradeep Yadav @ Mangra, S/o Khukharu Yadav - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 496 of 2015
Decided On : 22-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mrs. Abha Verma, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor

The prosecution must establish all ingredients of Section 304B IPC, including demand for dowry soon before death, to invoke presumption of guilt under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304B - Dowry death - Conviction of appellant under Section 304B was challenged on grounds of insufficient evidence regarding demand for dowry and timing of marriage - Court found that prosecution failed to establish demand for dowry soon before death, leading to acquittal. (Paras 1, 20, 24)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113B - Presumption of guilt arises only when all ingredients of Section 304B are established - Failure to prove any ingredient negates presumption. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the dowry death of his wife, Jiro Devi, who died under suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage. The prosecution alleged that she was subjected to dowry harassment.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not prove that the demand for dowry occurred soon before the death, which is a critical element under Section 304B.

Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution established the demand for dowry soon before the death and whether the appellant could be presumed guilty under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to prove the demand for dowry soon before death meant that the appellant could not be convicted under Section 304B, as all ingredients must be established for the presumption of guilt to apply.

Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of sole appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.2015 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda in S. T. Case No.72 of 2006, whereby the sole accused has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are no materials to convict this appellant for the charge framed under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It is his contention that charge could not have been framed under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code as it is apparent from the First Information Report itself wherein the informant had stated that the marriage of the deceased along with the appellant had taken place eight years ago. He further argued that there is no evidence that there was any demand for dowry soon before her death. It is his contention that the charge was only framed under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and not under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and when the basic ingredients of demand of dowry fails, the appellant is bound to be acquitted. He lastly argues that just because the appellant is the husband of the deceased, without any material he has been convicted.

3. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that though in the FIR it has been mentioned that marriage had taken place eight years back but the evidence of the witnesses clearly suggest that marriage had taken place within seven years of the date of the death. There is consistent evidence that dowry was demanded and the death is unnatural. When all these three ingredients are complete, the onus shifts upon the accused to prove his innocence. In the instant case the appellant has failed to discharge his burden thus it is presumed that the appellant being the husband, is guilty of committing dowry death. The trial Court has correctly convicted the appellant which needs no interference.

4. We have heard, the learned counsel for the parties and we have gone through the records. The fardbeyan is Exhibit-4 and the same was at the instance of Bhudeo Yadav. In the fardbeyan, he has stated that on 27.12.2005 when he was at his home, one Surendra Yadav of Village-Dadhukutta had informed that his daughter- Jiro Devi is unconscious in her matrimonial home. After getting information on the same day, he along with his father- Lodho Mahto, Balram Yadav, Ramotar Yadav, Raghu Yadav and other well-wishers went to the matrimonial home of his daughter, Jiro Devi. He saw his daughter lying on a cot in her matrimonial home. When he touched her, he found his daughter dead and also saw the injury below the left eye and hand. He further stated that his daughter was married with Hindu Rituals with Mangra @ Pradeep Yadav about eight years ago. He further stated that from last one year, his daughter, Jiro Devi was pressurized by her husband to bring motorcycle, television, one Buffalo and cash Rs.5,000/- from her him. He also stated that she used to tell him about the said demand and torture as and when she met her father. She was also apprehending and used to say to her father that if the demand is not fulfilled, she might be killed. He further stated that his daughter- Jiro Devi was tortured by her husband for the demand of dowry.

5. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Poraiyahat P.S. Case No.177 of 2005 was registered under Section 304B of IPC. The police after investigation filed chargesheet under Section 304B of IPC and thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

6. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charge was framed under Section 304B of IPC and he was put on trial. Nine witnesses have been examined in this case, who are as follows:-

    (i)P.W.-1-Lodho Mahto

    (ii) P.W.2- Ramawtar Yadav

    (iii) P.W.-3- Balram Yadav

    (iv) P.W.-4- Raghu Yadav

    (v) P.W.-5- Bhudeo Yadav

    (vi) P.W.-6- Julfikar Ali, In

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top