Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Subhash Chandra - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5331 of 2018 c/w. Criminal Appeal No. 5285 of 2018
Decided On : 28-05-2019
DOWRY DEATH - Criminal Appeals - Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323/34, 504 IPC & D.P. Act - [304-B, 498-A, 323/34, 504 IPC, D.P. Act] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to dowry death, cruelty, harassment, and the presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act. It emphasized the need for evidence to support the prosecution's case and highlighted the inadmissibility of statements recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code as evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed against the conviction and sentencing of the accused-appellants for offenses under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323/34, 504 IPC, & D.P. Act. The deceased was allegedly subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry, leading to her death by burning. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence and statements of witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to support the prosecution's case against the accused-appellants. It deemed the lower court's judgment as perverse and illegal, emphasizing the inadmissibility of statements recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code as evidence. Consequently, the accused-appellants were acquitted from the charges.
Issues: The key issue was the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants for the alleged offenses, particularly in the absence of direct evidence of dowry demands and harassment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for admissible evidence to support the prosecution's case, highlighting the inadmissibility of statements recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code as evidence. It also underscored the importance of proving the elements of dowry death and the inadmissibility of such statements for raising presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the lower court's judgment convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants was set aside. The accused-appellants were acquitted from the charges.
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Learned counsel for the appellants at the very out set has submitted that he will not argue on bail, but he will argue on the merits of appeal to which, learned A.G.A. has agreed.
2. Since facts of both the criminal appeals are similar and have been filed against same judgment, these appeals are decided by a common judgment.
3. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.9.2018 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Firozabad in Sessions Trial No. 266 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 58 of 2017, under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323/34, 504 IPC, & D.P. Act, P.S. Nagla Singhi, District Firozabad by which, accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, for seven years imprisonment, for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, for three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default one month imprisonment each, for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC, for six months imprisonment, for the offence under Section 504 IPC, for one year imprisonment and for the offence under Section D.P. Act, for one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further one month imprisonment each.
4. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 18.1.2017 by informant Raghuveer Singh stating that the deceased was married with accused Subhash Chandra about six years before and dowry was given according to status and capacity. For about 4-6 months, the deceased was treated properly in her in-laws house but thereafter accused persons started harassing her for inadequate dowry and for non fulfillment of dowry demand. The accused persons were demanding motorcycle, buffalo and chain. On refusal to make request to her father for said demand by the deceased, the accused persons used to keep her without food. The deceased left her in-laws house and remained in her Mayka about three years and thereafter with the interference of local people the deceased was sent to her in-laws. After some time, she was again put to cruelty and harassment. Thereafter, again she came back to her Mayka and stayed there about five months. Again with the help of local people she was sent to her in-laws. On 17.1.2017 about 5.00 p.m. deceased informed her mother on phone that she is not being provided food and they are harassing her for dowry demand. On 18.1.2017, the informant went to the house of his daughter and tried to convince them but they started abusing him and tried to beat him and demanded one lac rupees. The informant came back. Thereafter, accused persons, after beating the deceased, burnt her by pouring kerosene oil. The deceased anyhow informed her father that accused persons have burnt her. Subsequently, she died because of burn injury. On his FIR, the matter was investigated by police and charge sheet was submitted against accused persons for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323/34, 504 IPC & D.P. Act.
5. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323/34, 504 IPC, & D.P. Act and in alternative, charge under section 302/34 was also framed. The accused persons denied charges and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. PW-1 Raghuveer is father and informant and PW-2 Guddi Devi is mother and both have been declared hostile. The other witnesses are formal in nature.
7. Statement of accused persons was recorded and they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. No evidence was adduced by the accused-appellants in their defence.
8. After hearing the prosecution and defence, the learned trial court by impugned judgment convicted the accused-appellants.
9. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, these two appeals have been preferred challenging the same on the basis that impugned judgment is perverse and without any evidence available on record and is bad in law. The learned
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
