Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3386
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.
Deena Nath Dubey - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 880 of 2011
Decided On : 18-11-2014
Headnote:
498-A and 304-B IPC - Conviction under section 498-A IPC and modification of conviction from section 304 part (II) IPC to section 304-B IPC - [498-A and 304-B IPC] - [IPC Section 222, 304-B, 498-A] - The court discussed the legal provisions under sections 222(1) and 222(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the interpretation of minor and major offences. It also highlighted the legal principles established in the cases of Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing the distinction between major and minor offences based on common ingredients. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the ingredients to constitute an offence under section 304-B IPC and the presumption under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the charges under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC for the death of his daughter-in-law. The deceased was alleged to have been treated with cruelty due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands and died an unnatural death. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that the victim fell from the roof, resulting in her injuries and subsequent death. The trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's conviction under section 304 part (II) IPC should be modified to section 304-B IPC, as all the ingredients to constitute an offence under section 304-B IPC were present. The court also confirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court and cancelled the appellant's bail, directing him to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
Issues: The issues addressed by the court included the interpretation of minor and major offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the distinction between offences under section 304-B and 304 IPC, and the evidence regarding demand of dowry and ill treatment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions, the examination of evidence regarding demand of dowry and ill treatment, and the application of the presumption under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also considered the impact of the offence on the society and the need for an appropriate sentence to reflect the gravity of the offence.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, modified the appellant's conviction from section 304 part (II) IPC to section 304-B IPC, confirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court, cancelled the appellant's bail, and directed him to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.
1. Under challenge in the instant criminal appeal is the judgment and order dated 1.3.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Faizabad, in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 1074 of 2008, Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District Faizabad, whereby the appellant-Deena Nath Dubey was tried for the charges under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC but he was convicted for the offence under section 498-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and he was also convicted for the offence under section 304 part II IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation of one year's additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the complainant Surya Narayan Pandey lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Bikapur on 8.11.2008 alleging therein that his daughter Poonam was married with Sadanand Dubey who is son of the present appellant. The marriage was solemnized about 5-6 years prior to her death. No vida ceremony took place in marriage. However, after three years of the marriage ceremony the gauna ceremony took place and in dowry Rs. 51,000/- cash and other items were given but the complainant could not give Hero Honda motorcycle in dowry as demanded by the appellant. Because of the non-fulfillment of this demand of dowry his daughter Poonam was treated with cruelty in different manners. Whenever she used to come to her parental home then she used to narrate the cruelty which she was facing in connection with the dowry demand, but the family of the deceased used to console her that bad weather of his life shall pass away. The appellant declined to send her on the occasion of marriage of her younger sister Kavita only because of the non-fulfillment of his demand. Marriage ceremony of the younger sister of the deceased took place on 22.4.2008. The appellant had threatened the complainant side that in case his demand is not fulfilled then he shall remarry his son Sadanand after killing the victim. On 8.11.2008 at about 7-8 a.m. the complainant got an information that his daughter Poonam has been killed by the present appellant and his wife and his daughter Saroj. This F.I.R. was lodged at the police station on the same day at 10.20 a.m. and inquest proceedings took place and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem which was conducted on the same day at 4.45 p.m. According to the post mortem report the deceased was aged about 21 years and following ante-mortem injuries were found on her body
(i) Abrasion 1.5 x 0.5 c.m. over frontal region below her margin.
(ii) Abrasion 4 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. on anterior aspect of neck, below angle of mordible right side.
(iii) Abrasion 0.5 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. over superstructural notch with depression of rib case entangled in lungs inner side.
(iv) Bruise over right upper limb extending from 4 deltoid to middle of forearm.
(v) Bruise diffusion of both gluteal region.
(vi) Bruise diffusion over right calf muscle (posterior aspect of leg).
(vii) Bruise over left thigh laterally 8 c.m. x 6 c.m.
(viii) Bruise over left upper limb from mid arm to mid forearm.
(ix) Lacerated wound 6 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. over shin of right foot, 8 c.m. below knee.
(x) Contusion over right parietal region 6 c.m. x 4 c.m., above right ear.
(xi) Serum coming from right nostril.
3. On internal examination there was fracture on right parietal bone with subdural haematoma. Cortilages of walls of breast with fracture of both side ribs. Ribs pointing innerside Haemo-therax. Both the lungs were lacerated. Right cell of heart was full and left was empty. Peritoneum of abdomen had blood clots. Buccal cavity was congested. Stomach was empty. Small intestine had gas and pasty substance and large intestine had
