Back
2015 Supreme(All) 4034
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Om Prakash-VII, J.
Satyadeo and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3444 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 3565 of 2013
Decided On : 03-11-2015
For the Appellants :Vatsala, Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sujan Singh and D.K. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Bharat Pratap Singh, A.G.A.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of the offenses under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Indian Penal Code, and the court's discretion in affirming or setting aside convictions based on the evidence presented.
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Matrimonial Dispute - Section 498-A, 323/34, 313 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - 2, 3, 4 - The court discussed the prosecution's case, the defense's arguments, and the evidence presented. It analyzed the essential ingredients of the offenses under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Indian Penal Code, and the nexus between the acts of the accused and the miscarriage of the victim. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the offense under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the conviction under section 313 IPC was not sustainable. However, the court affirmed the conviction under sections 323/34 and 498-A IPC, and modified the punishment for the offense under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a matrimonial dispute where the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused-appellants for dowry. The prosecution presented evidence of demand for dowry, cruelty, and harassment, while the defense denied the allegations and presented alibis. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for various offenses, and the appeals were filed against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the offense under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the conviction under section 313 IPC was not sustainable. However, the court affirmed the conviction under sections 323/34 and 498-A IPC, and modified the punishment for the offense under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the proof of dowry demand, cruelty, and harassment, the nexus between the accused's acts and the miscarriage of the victim, and the applicability of various sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the evidence, the essential ingredients of the offenses, and the legal provisions under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Indian Penal Code. It found that the prosecution failed to establish certain offenses but affirmed the conviction for others based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence for certain offenses, modifying the punishment for the offense under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and affirming the conviction under sections 323/34 and 498-A IPC.
Om Prakash-VII, J. - Both the aforementioned connected appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 19.7.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, District Aligarh in Sessions Trial No.235 of 2009 (State v. Satya Dev and another), Sessions Trial No.823 of 2011 (State v. Ram Prakash and another) and Sessions Trial No.151 of 2005 (State v. Pramod and others) pertaining to case crime no.192 of 2001, Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh whereby the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offence under sections 498-A, 323/34, 313 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- to each of the accused-appellant for the offence under section 498-A IPC, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 323/34 IPC to each of the accused-appellant, to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- to each of the accused-appellant for the offence under section 313 IPC and to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15000/- to each of the accused-appellant for the offence under sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Trial Court has also ordered additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine imposed upon the accused-appellants.
2. Since both the aforesaid connected criminal appeals have been heard together, therefore, the Court proceeds to decide the same by a common judgment.
3. Prosecution story as unfoled in the written report is as follows :
Informant P.W.1 Chandra Pal Singh gave a written report at police station concerned mentioning therein that the marriage of his daughter P.W.2 Km. Seema (daughter of the informant), was solemnized with appellant Pramod Kumar on 9.5.1997. Informant had given sufficient dowry according to his capacity, but the appellants, just after the marriage, started harassing his daughter on account of demand of dowry. They also kept his daughter (victim) hungry for about four days during her pregnancy period and caused cruelty to bring Rs. 1 lac. A girl was born out after major operation and after discharge from the hospital, the victim reached at her in-laws' house. All the accused-appellants beaten her black and blue and expelled her from the house. Chachiya Sasur of the victim was also involved in the matter. On 8th October, 1998, accused-appellants called the daughter of the informant i.e. victim in a family ceremony. On that occasion, the informant giving L20,000/- to his son-in-law (appellant Pramod) sent his daughter to her in-laws' house, but on 21.1.2001 again accused-appellants beat her. On 27.1.2001, she was again expelled from her in-laws' house. Victim was pregnant at that time. Miscarriage occurred due to the act of the accused-appellants, but no one had taken care of the victim.
4. On the basis of written report (Ex.Ka.-1), chick F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.-2) was registered at the police station concerned on 27.5.2001 at 21: 20 hours for the offence under sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Entry was also made in the G.D. as Ex.Ka.-3. Investigation was started in the matter. The investigating officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ex.Ka.-5), recorded the statements of the witnesses and also collected the medical evidence and on the strength of evidence collected during investigation, submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.-6) against the accused-appellants Pramod, Munish and Yogesh.
5. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance and the case, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
6. Accused appeared and charges were framed against them under sections 498-A, 323/34, 313 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act to which they deined and claimed their trial.
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 Chandra Pal Singh, the informant, P.W.2 Seema Devi, the victim, P.W.3 Constable Surendra Singh, P.W.4 Dr. M.K. Rajput
