Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3208
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ajai Lamba, Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Ramjiwan & 2 Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 2014
Decided On : 27-07-2016
For the Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
For the Respondent:- R.K.Tripathi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the demand of dowry, harassment, and the proximity of such acts to the death of the woman, as well as the scope of appeal against acquittal.
Headnote:
Dowry - Acquittal of Respondents - Indian Penal Code, Sections 498A and 304B, Dowry Prohibition Act - 3/4 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing the elements of the offense, including the demand of dowry, harassment, and the proximity of such acts to the death of the woman. The court also highlighted the principles of presumption and the scope of appeal against acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was married to the respondent-accused and allegedly faced harassment for dowry. The trial court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence of dowry demand and harassment, leading to the state's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the charges not proved, as the prosecution failed to establish the demand of dowry, cruelty for non-fulfillment of dowry, and cruel treatment of the deceased in connection with dowry soon before her death.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand of dowry, harassment, and the proximity of such acts to the death of the woman, as well as the scope of appeal against acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proximity between the harassment for dowry and the death of the woman, and the requirement of proving demand of dowry and harassment. It also highlighted the principles of presumption and the scope of appeal against acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no palpable error or erroneous judgment by the trial court, warranting interference by the appellate court.
Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant-State of U.P against judgment dated 18th January, 2008 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 442/2006 'State Versus Ramjiwan and others' arising out of Crime No. 396 of 2005, under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur whereby the respondentccused have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
2. The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, as deciphered from written complaint (Exhibit Ka-1), are that deceased Asha Devi was married to respondent- accused Ramjiwan two years prior to the date of occurrence. As per prosecution case the deceased used to complain of demand of double bed and cash by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law in dowry whenever she came to her parental house. Due to his poor economic condition, the complainant could not fulfill the demand of her in-laws. His son-in-law Ramjiwan wanted some money to purchase motorcycle. Due to harassment for dowry by her in-laws the deceased had come to her parental house. But approximately 7-8 days before the date of occurrence, her husband, accused Ramjiwan came to her and took her alongwith him. The deceased did not want to go to her matrimonial home, but the complainant persuaded her to go. Thereafter, on 15.10.2005 the complainant received information that she committed suicide. On inquiry from neighbours, it came to his knowledge that due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, her husband Ramjiwan, father-in-law Mahesh and mother-in-law Smt. Savitri harassed her and killed her. As per complainant's case the respondents-accused after killing her, hanged her from ceiling. A written complaint (Exhibit Ka-1) was given by complainant Sunder Lal in Police Station Hargaon on which first information report (Exhibit Ka-3) was lodged. Corresponding entries were made in General Diary of police station, copy of which is Exhibit Ka-4. Inquest report (Exhibit Ka-5) was also prepared by Naib Tehsildar, Hargaon, Sitapur. Thereafter, autopsy was conducted on cadaver of the deceased and postmortem report was prepared by Dr. S. P. Ojha, which is Exhibit Ka-2. During investigation, site-plan of place of occurrence was prepared by the investigating officer, which is Exhibit Ka-12. Letter to Chief Medical Officer (Exhibit Ka-6), Specimen of seal (Exhibit Ka-7), Photo of the dead body (Exhibit Ka-8), Challan of the dead body (Exhibit Ka-9) and letter of R.I. (Exhibit Ka-10) are also on record. Prima-facie, case having been found during investigation, charge-sheet against respondents-accused was prepared and filed in the Court, which is Exhibit Ka-11. On the basis of charge-sheet, respondents-accused were summoned and committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed against the respondents-accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B Indian Penal Code and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges were read-over and explained to the accused persons, which were denied by them and they claimed to be tried.
3. To prove charges of demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased against the accused, prosecution examined complainant Sunder Lal as PW-1 and Virendra Kumar as PW-2. PW-1 has stated that the deceased Asha Devi was married to respondent-accused Ramjiwan two years before the occurrence of the incident. Two months after the marriage when she came to her parental home, she complained that her husband Ramjiwan, father-in-law Mahesh and mother-in-law Smt. Savitri started putting pressure on her to bring double bed and cash for purchase of motorcycle. He has also stated that the accused also stopped food and clothes to her. They threatened to kill her in case demand is not fulfilled. He has also stated on oath that last time when her husband Ramjiwan came to take her with him to her matrimonial house, she was not willing to go as she had apprehension that they would kill her. Th
