Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Pradip Mohanty, J.
NATWARLAL PODDAR AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1989
Decided On : 30-01-2009
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the elements of dowry death under Section 304B IPC, including cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, and the evidence required to establish the agreement for payment of dowry under Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
Headnote:
304B I.P.C. - Dowry Death - Section 304B I.P.C. - Section 4 of the D.P. Act - [304B I.P.C., Section 4 of the D.P. Act] - The court discussed the requirements to prove a case under Section 304B IPC and the evidence related to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. The court also considered the evidence related to Section 4 of the D.P. Act and the agreement for payment of dowry.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the Appellants under Sections 304B I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act for the death of the deceased due to dowry-related harassment and cruelty. The prosecution presented evidence of ill-treatment and demand for dowry by the Appellants, while the defense contested the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 304B IPC against the Appellants, leading to the acquittal of the Appellants of the said charge. However, the court convicted Appellants Sitaram Poddar and Kamal Kishore Poddar under Section 498A IPC and confirmed the conviction of Appellant Sitaram Poddar under Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around proving the elements of dowry death under Section 304B IPC, the evidence of cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, and the agreement for payment of dowry under Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence proving the cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased, leading to the acquittal of the Appellants under Section 304B IPC. However, the court found clear evidence of cruelty against Appellants Sitaram Poddar and Kamal Kishore Poddar under Section 498A IPC and upheld the conviction under Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
Final Decision: The court acquitted all the Appellants of the charge under Section 304B IPC, convicted Appellants Sitaram Poddar and Kamal Kishore Poddar under Section 498A IPC, and confirmed the conviction of Appellant Sitaram Poddar under Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses the elements to prove dowry death under Section 304B IPC, including cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demand. (!) - It considers evidence related to Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the existence of an agreement for payment of dowry. (!) - The court found the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 304B IPC, leading to acquittal of the Appellants on that charge. (!) (!) - The court convicted Sitaram Poddar and Kamal Kishore Poddar under Section 498A IPC and confirmed the conviction under Section 4 of the D.P. Act for dowry-related cruelty/harassment. (!) (!) - The court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 304B IPC for all Appellants and acquitted them of that charge. (!) - The final decision: acquittal under Section 304B IPC; conviction under Section 498A IPC for Sitaram Poddar and Kamal Kishore Poddar; conviction under Section 4 of the D.P. Act for Sitaram Poddar. (!) - The final result indicates the appeals were allowed in part as indicated. (!) - Autopsy and evidence established death occurred within seven years of marriage and involved non-natural death, but linkage to dowry-related cruelty soon before death was not proven for 304B. (!) (!) - The Court noted evidence of cruelty exists for certain appellants, independently of dowry demand. (!) (!) - The prosecution’s case relied on witnesses and documents showing ill-treatment and dowry demands, but the court found lack of nexus to dowry cruelty immediately before death for 304B. (!) (!) - The Court confirmed 498A conviction and DP Act conviction for Sitaram Poddar; modified other outcomes accordingly. (!) (!)
What is the requirement to prove dowry death under Section 304B IPC including cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry?
What is the role of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in proving dowry-related allegations and the agreement for payment of dowry?
What is the court's finding regarding the ingredients of Section 304B IPC and the acquittal/conviction outcomes for the Appellants?
JUDGMENT :
Pradip Mohanty, J. - Both the Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 25.01.1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1987 convicting the Appellants under Sections 304B I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for seven years. Appellant-Sitaram Poddar has also been convicted u/s 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, both the sentences imposed on him to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of accused Kamal Kishore Poddar, who is Appellant No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1989, with the deceased Prava Devi was solemnized in June, 1985. From the day of marriage, the Appellants began ill-treating her by demanding further dowry and caused mental agony to her. This fact was disclosed by the deceased in her parental house. In April 1986, the Appellant Kamal Kishore took the deceased to the house of P.W.19, left her there and came away without speaking anything. At that time, there were some injuries on the body of the deceased. The deceased told that she had been assaulted by the members of her husband's family in connection with demand of further dowry. None from the family of Appellants came to take her back till November, 1986. However, the matter was settled and the deceased was brought to Sambalpur. But since she did not bring the dowry articles like Air Cooler, Freeze and gold ornaments, the Appellants did not hesitate to inflict bum injuries on the deceased for which she was treated by a Doctor from 30th January 1987 to 8th February, 1998 and was almost cured. On 09.02.1987, the deceased vomited blood and breathed her last at 6.55 A.M. The dead body was taken to burial ground and without observing the caste customs, kerosene was poured over the body with a view to expedite burning the body and fire was set to the deceased. Hukum Chand Patwari (P.W.25), one of the relations of the deceased, learnt about the death of the deceased and informed the town police over telephone. P.W.25 and the police officer reached the burial ground and asked the Appellants to extinguish the fire, but as they did not comply with the direction of the police, P.W.25 with the help of others extinguished the fire and recovered only 25% of the body, which was sent for post-mortem examination. During investigation, some bed-sheets, pillow covers, quilt covers and a bamboo lathi were seized from the room under the occupation of the deceased and Appellant Kamal Kishore. All those articles were stained with human blood. After completion of investigation, the Appellants were charge-sheeted and charge was framed under Sections 302/304B/201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and also Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 34 witnesses and proved 45 exhibits. Defence examined none but proved two documents marked Exts. A and B. The learned Sessions Judge, who tried the case, vide his judgment dated 25.01.1989 convicted Appellants Sitaram Poddar, Kamal Kishore Poddar, Natwarlal Poddar, Sawarmal Poddar and Sangita Poddar u/s 304B I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for seven years. He also convicted Appellant Sitaram Poddar u/s 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year with the direction that both the sentences are to run concurrently.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the trial court without appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective and without keeping in view the settled legal position, has convicted the Appellants. The trial court has held in Para 10 and 11 of its judgment that there was no demand of dowry and the alleged demand of dowry is doubtful. He further submitted that Section 113B of the Evidence Act deals with presumption of dowry death. In order to bring a case within the ambit of Section 304B I.P.C. it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the death of the deceased occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within se
