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
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:-
(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
Satvir Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 633
Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207
Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 2 SCC 629
Devender Singh v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2022) 13 SCC 82
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.
To sustain a conviction under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must establish a proximate link between dowry-related cruelty and the victim's death within seven years of marriage, demonstrating that....
The prosecution must prove that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before her death to establish a case under Section 304B of the IPC; failure to ....
Conviction upheld - Dowry death - there was persistent demand of dowry made by accused from the victim who was used to subjected to cruelty and harassment for such demand and ultimately she had ended....
The central legal point established is the application of Section 304B of IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act in cases of dowry death, emphasizing the need for proximity between cruelty/harassm....
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, establishing that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry demands, leading to her suicide, thus satisfying the legal requirements fo....
The court ruled that to establish dowry death under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must show cruelty for dowry was inflicted soon before the victim's death, with a clear link between the two.
Dowry death – Mere death of deceased being unnatural in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict accused under Section 304B and 498A of IPC.
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death to sustain a conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
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.