IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Kedar Mandal, Son of Nunulal Mandal - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 901, 1308 of 2006
Decided On : 27-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304B and 34 - Conviction for dowry death - Appellants convicted for Section 304B but acquitted for Section 302 - Evidence insufficient to establish cruelty by certain appellants - Conviction of husband upheld due to demand of dowry and unnatural death within seven years of marriage - Sentence of husband modified to time already served. (Paras 28-32)
(B) Appeal - Acquittal of certain appellants due to lack of specific evidence against them - General allegations insufficient for conviction. (Paras 28-29)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, Chameli Devi, was married in 1999 and subjected to dowry demands, leading to her death in 2002. The informant found her dead with ligature marks. FIR registered under IPC Sections 304B and 34. (Paras 3-4)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction of certain appellants was set aside due to lack of evidence, while the conviction of the husband was upheld. Sentence modified to time served. (Paras 28-32)
Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of evidence for dowry-related cruelty and the appropriateness of the conviction for the husband. (Paras 28-29)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that general allegations without specific evidence do not suffice for conviction under Section 304B. The husband's conviction was justified due to the established dowry demand and circumstances of death. (Paras 28-30)
Result: Appeals allowed for certain appellants; conviction of husband upheld with modified sentence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual matrix of the case (Para 3 , 6) |
| 2. fir registered against accused (Para 4) |
| 3. trial court proceedings (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.K.Srivastava, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Appellants of both the criminal appeals have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 21.06.2006 and order of sentence dated 22.06.2006 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2005/98 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 304B / 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that daughter of the informant namely, Chameli Devi (deceased) was married with the one Deo Narayan Mondal (appellant in Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 1308/2006) in the year 1999 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, as per capacity, dowry was given and informant’s daughter went to her matrimonial home and started discharging her matrimonial obligations and also gave birth to female child. After birth of female child, a demand of Rs. 5,000/- was raised from her as an additional dowry, which could not be fulfilled, due to poverty of informant. As a result of which, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture by all the accused persons and ousted from matrimonial home several times. It is alleged that ultimately on 01.06.2002 at about 5:00 PM a message was given to the informant that his daughter has been admitted at Narayanpur Hospital, due to diarrhoea. The informant went to said Hospital, but did not find his daughter and when he went to her matrimonial home, where his daughter dead body was lying on a cot and there was black ligature mark on her neck. Her in-laws were absconding from the house.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, FIR being Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2002 dated 01.06.2002 was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 304B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet. Cognizance of the offence was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges have been framed for the offences under Sections 304B/34 and 302/34 of the I.P.C., to which the accused persons denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused persons, altogether nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced:-
Exhibit-1 : Signature of Jagdish Mondal & & 1/1 Sital Mondal respectively on fardbeyan.
Exhibit-2 : Signature of witnesses on & 2/1 inquest report.
Exhibit-3 : Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-4 : Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit-5 : Inquest report.
Exhibit-6 : Post-mortem report of Chameli Devi.
8. On the other hand, the defence has also examined five witnesses and also adduced following documents:-
Exhibit-A : Invitation card of marriage of & A/1 Chameli Devi and it’s envelop respectively.
Exhibit- : Invitation card along with A/2 envelope of the marriage of Chameli Devi.
Exhibit-B : Invitation card of marriage of Tejeshwar with Malti Devi.
Exhibit-C : Prescription of Chameli Devi.
9. After conclusion of trial, considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C., but convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304B / 34 of the I.P.C., which has been assailed in these appeals.
Argument on behalf of appellants in Cr.A.(S.J.) No.901 of 2006
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the appellants happened to be bhaisur, mother-in-law and gotni of the deceased, against whom there was general and omnibus allegation simply dema
General allegations without specific evidence are insufficient for conviction under Section 304B of IPC; however, a dowry demand and unnatural death within seven years justify conviction.
In dowry death cases, prosecution must prove unnatural death within seven years of marriage with cruelty/harassment soon before by husband/relatives linked to dowry demand to raise rebuttable presump....
Witnesses embellished their evidence before the Court by implicating the appellants no. 2 and 3 though in the initial complaint there is a specific allegation against only against the appellant No. 1....
Conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld due to consistent evidence of dowry-related torture; acquitted under Section 304B IPC for lack of proof regarding abnormal death circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborated evidence in cases involving dowry demands and assault, as well as the requirement to prove the deceased's death with....
The court emphasized the necessity of reliable evidence for conviction in dowry death cases, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements under IPC Sections 304B and 306.
The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry shortly before her death, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry, leading to....
The prosecution must prove demand for dowry and cruelty to establish a dowry death under Section 304B IPC, leading to a presumption of guilt against the accused.
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.