Back
2011 Supreme(All) 3476
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Barin Ghosh;CJ, U.C.Dhyani, JJ.
Rahasan -Appellant
Versus
State of Uttaranchal -Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 94 of 2002
Decided On : 29-12-2011
The dying declaration and its fulfillment of the elements of the offense of 'dowry death' were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Dowry Death - Criminal Law - IPC 304-B, IPC 498-A, Dowry Prohibition Act - The court discussed the dying declaration, evidence of witnesses, and the elements of the offenses under IPC 304-B and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found that the dying declaration did not fulfill the ingredients of the offense of 'dowry death' and acquitted the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of a woman due to burns, with the accused being charged under IPC 304-B, IPC 498-A, and Dowry Prohibition Act. The dying declaration, evidence of witnesses, and contradictions in the statements were crucial aspects of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dying declaration did not fulfill the elements of the offense of 'dowry death' and acquitted the appellant. The court also highlighted contradictions in the evidence and lack of proof for the alleged offenses.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of the dying declaration, contradictions in witness statements, and the fulfillment of the elements of the offenses under IPC 304-B and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of fulfillment of the elements of the offense of 'dowry death' as per the dying declaration and the overall evidence presented. The court also emphasized the importance of scrutinizing the dying declaration and the need for corroborative evidence.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the judgment and order passed by the trial court and quashing the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant.
In the instant case, the criminal law was set into motion by one Bashir Khan s/o Nizam Ali r/o Ward No.10, Kichha who had lodged a complaint with the Inspector In-charge Kotwali, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar on 30.06.2000 stating that his daughter Smt. Bhuri was married to Ahmad Hasan s/o Shaukat r/o Ward No.17 Kichha some 09 months ago. Her husband Ahmad Hasan and her mother-in-law Rahasan w/o Shaukat demanded dowry and also used to commit marpeet with her. Smt. Bhuri used to complain about the same but the father persuaded his daughter to reconcile. On 30.06.2000 at around 4:00 p.m. her mother-in-law blamed her for having illicit relations with another man. The mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. On her hue and cry the neighbours tried to come to her rescue and brought her to the Government Hospital Kichha. She was referred to Bareilly (higher centre). But she breathed her last on way to Bareilly. Her dead body was lying at Government Hospital, Kichha.
2. On the basis of this complaint (Ext. Ka-1) chik FIR (Ext.Ka-9) was prepared and crime no. 131/2000 was registered against the accused Ahmad Hasan and Rahasan in respect of offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. Investigation of the case was taken up by Ms. Vimla Gunjiyal, Circle Officer. She inspected the spot, prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-12), took the statements of the witnesses and submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-10) against the accused persons. The copies of the prosecution documents were provided to the accused persons and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, who conducted the trial.
3. Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B IPC, 498-A IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused Rahasan, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. No reference of the charges against Ahmad Hasan, husband of the victim, is being made here as the learned trial court has exonerated him of the charges levelled against him. Prosecution examined P.W.1 Shabbir, P.W.2 Laddan, P.W.3 Girish Kumar, Tehsildar, P.W.4 Dr. V.D. Joshi, and P.W.5 Dr. M.D. Pande. The genuineness of the documents on record was admitted by learned counsel for the accused (now appellant) before the learned trial court. In defence, D.W.1 Puran Lal and D.W.2 Asghar Ali were examined.
4. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused Rahasan under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which she alleged that the evidence adduced against her is false. She said that while she was away from her residence, her daughter-in-law (Smt. Bhuri) received burns while cooking food.
5. Learned trial court found the accused Rahasan guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B IPC, 498-A IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted her accordingly. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar whereby accused / appellant Smt. Rahasan has been convicted under Section 304-B IPC, section 498A IPC and section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act in sessions trial no. 299/2000 and has been sentenced to 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment, one year’s RI and three months’ RI for these offences respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Co-accused Ahmad Hasan (husband) was however, acquitted of the charges framed against him.
6. P.W.1 Shabbir is the father of the deceased Bhuri. He has stated that his daughter Bhuri was married to accused Ahmad Hasan 2 years ago. Accused Ahmad Hasan and Rahasan never demanded dowry. His daughter died of burns. He was not aware who had set her on fire. He got a complaint written by one Iqbal Ahmad. He has acknowledged that it was written in the complaint that so and so poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire, but he said that this sentence was not spoken (to Iqbal Ahmad). This sentence might have been got written at the instance of other persons. He is illiterate. He has acknowledged his thumb impression
