Back
2003 Supreme(All) 1189
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
U.S.Tripathi, V.N.Singh
ANIL KUMAR SETH
Versus
STATE O
Decided On : 22 May 2003
Criminal Appeal No. 1056 of 2002 with Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No. 542 of 2002
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands under section 304-B IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Headnote:
Dowry - Criminal Appeals - 304-B IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act - 2000 (41) AGO 3 (SC), 1997 (34) ACC 657 (SC), Sunil Bajaj v. State of M. P.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for causing the death of the deceased due to dowry demands and harassment. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was killed by the appellants due to unfulfilled dowry demands.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants in connection with dowry demands. The court also noted that the complainant and his wife admitted to implicating the entire family on the advice of others.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution could prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants in connection with dowry demands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in 2000 (41) AGO 3 (SC) and 1997 (34) ACC 657 (SC) to emphasize the importance of proving cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands. The court found that the prosecution's evidence was vague and inconsistent, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges under section 304-B IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 5. 2. 2002 passed by Sri S. Lal, the then IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi in S. T. No. 59 of 2001 (under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Baragaon, Varanasi) by which, he convicted appellant Smt. Amarawati Devi under section 304-B I. P. C. and sentenced her to life imprisonment, convicted appellant Anil Kumar Seth under section 304-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10 years R. I. convicted appellants Ram Dhani, Ishwar Chandra, Vinay Kumar, Vi-nod Kumar and Sunil Kumar Seth under section 304-B I PC and sentenced them to undergo 7 years R. I. and fined each of the appellants to Rs. 5,000/- and convicted the appellants under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo one year R. I. and also fined each of the appellants to Rs. 3,000/- It was held by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that as the appellants were convicted and sentenced under section 304-B IPC, hence they are not convicted under section 498-A I. P. C.
2. As three criminal appeals filed against the same judgment by the appellants, have been consolidated, hence they are disposed of together by a common judgment.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 12. 5. 2000 Mahendra Kumar Seth lodged an F. I. R. at 10. 15 a. m. at P. S. Baragaon district Varanasi that he married his daughter Pratima with appellant Anil Kumar S/o Ramdhani on 28. 6. 1998 in a Shiv temple. The appellants were demanding in dowry, coloured T. V. , fridge, motor cycle etc. Appellant Smt. Amarawati Devi mother-in-law, Sri Ram Dhani father-in-law and brother in laws, Sunil Kumar Seth, Ishwar Chandra, Vinod Kumar, Vinay Kumar and Dhirendra Kumar were harassing Pratima in connection with minor family disputes. Pratima used to inform his father Mahendra Kumar Seth that in case the demand of the appellants was not fulfilled they would kill her. Due to poverty complainant could not fulfill the demand, his daughter Pratima was killed by the appellants on 11. 5. 2000.
4. Oh 11. 5. 2000 complainant was informed about the death of her daughter by father in law of the deceased on telephone at 11. 00p. m.
5. Complainant along with 8-10 persons came to the house of in laws of the deceased and found the dead body of her daughter in the room.
6. During investigation, post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. R. K. Agarwal and other formalities were completed. After investigation of the case, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants.
7. Accused-appellants Smt. Amarawati Devi, Sunil Kumar Seth, Ishwar Chandra, Anil Kumar Seth, Vinod Kumar, Vinay Kumar, and Ramdhani were charged for the offences under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. They denied the allegations.
8. Prosecution examined complainant Mahendra Kumar Seth P. W 1, Smt. Chinta Devi wife of the complainant P. W. 2, Dr. R. K. Agarwal P. W. 3, who conducted the autopsy on the deceased, Sri Divesh Kumar Pandey, C. O. Investigating Officer P. W. 4, S. I. Ram Asrey Gupta P. W. 5, who prepared Panchayatnama, photo lash and challan lash and sent the dead body to the B. H. U. for post-mortem examination through constables Zulfiqar and home guard Vinod Kumar Tiwari. He also deposed that, F. I. R. was written by Constable Moharrir Fateh Bahadur Singh. He proved his signature as Ext. Ka 2 and copy of the G. D. Ext. Ka13.
9. The appellants stated that, they have been falsely implicated.
10. Appellant Sunil Kumar deposed that, prior to the incident, he was living at his sasural in Madiyaon.
11. The appellants have examined none in their defence.
12. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.
13. Aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred the af
