Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HARSH KUMAR, J.
Pramod Kumar Sharma and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 444 of 1988
Decided On : 14-09-2018
Dowry Death - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304B, Section 498A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113B - The judgment discusses the provisions of Section 304B and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. It highlights the necessity of proving demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to harassment or cruelty for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry in order to establish dowry death. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of corroborating evidence and the timing of the enactment of the relevant legal provisions in determining the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Veena Sharma, was allegedly subjected to cruelty for non-fulfilment of dowry demands. The prosecution failed to prove the demand of dowry or harassment of the deceased. The trial court acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 302, I.P.C. and held them guilty under Section 304B, I.P.C. and Section 498A, I.P.C. based on contradictory findings.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court's findings were contradictory and based on the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which was not in force at the time of the incident. The court held that the accused cannot be held guilty for administering alcohol or poison to the deceased but also held them guilty for causing dowry death, which was self-contradictory.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure of the prosecution to prove the demand of dowry or harassment of the deceased, the contradictory findings of the trial court, and the applicability of legal provisions enacted after the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasizes the necessity of proving demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to harassment or cruelty for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry in order to establish dowry death. It also highlights the importance of corroborating evidence and the timing of the enactment of the relevant legal provisions in determining the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order of conviction under Sections 304B/34 and 498A/34, I.P.C. were set aside. The accused-appellants were acquitted of the charges of offences under Section 304B/34 as well as Section 498A/34, I.P.C. The appellants were also discharged from their bail bonds and surety bonds.
JUDGMENT :
Harsh Kumar, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.2.1988 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 501 of 1985, under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34, I.P.C, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur arising out of Case Crime No. 485 of 1985, by which the three accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Section 302, I.P.C. and held guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 498A/34, I.P.C. and 304B/34, I.P.C. and sentenced with three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A/34, I.P.C. and with seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B/34, I.P.C.
2. Feeling aggrieved, all the three convicts preferred this appeal.
3. The brief facts relating to the appeal are that Vinod Shankar Sharma, lodged a F.I.R. at Police Station Chakeri. District Kanpur at 00:30 p.m. on 10.5.1985 at Case Crime No. 485 of 1985 under Sections 498A and 302, I.P.C. against the appellants stating that "the complainant made marriage of his daughter Veena Sharma with Pramod Sharma, resident of 199-D/14, Bengali Colony, Harjinder Nagar, Police Station Chakeri, Kanpur, on 21.2.1985; that in marriage his son-in-law and samdhi had demanded Bajaj Super Scooter' and bride's jewellery; that he gave 'Vijai Super Scooter' instead of Bajaj Super Scooter' in marriage which caused annoyance to them; that Smt. Shakuntala Devi mother-in-law, Madan Mohan Lal Sharma father-in-law and Pramod Sharma son-in-law, husband, treated his daughter with cruelty for not bringing heavy jewellery and Bajaj Super Scooter in dowry; that sometime back when his daughter had come to his home on "Vida", she made complaints with his wife and other members of the family about the cruel treatment she met at the hands of her in-laws; that on 6.8.1985 birth day of Pramod Sharma was celebrated at their home which was attended by him alongwith his wife, brother Pramod Shankar and one friend Nawal Behari Agrawal resident of Shanti Nagar, Police Station Rail Bazar, Kanpur; that on birthday of Promod Sharma also mother-in-law, son-in-law and father-in-law all expressed their displeasure before everybody present there by saying that complainant was not keeping his words about dowry and in case the demand of dowry is not met and fulfilled within two days, they will not spare his daughter alive; that his daughter, also informed him that all these three persons were planning to kill her; that the complainant assured his son-in-law, Samdhi and Samdhan that he will try to fulfill their demands but he failed to fulfill within two days; that today on 9.8.1985 at 8:30 p.m. in night his son-in-law came to his house and informed that the condition of Veena is very serious and she has been taken to hospital by members of his family; that the complainant accompanied his son-in-law to Urshala Hospital and on reaching Ursula Hospital Emergency Ward he found Veena lying dead and her nails and lips had turned blue as the accused had caused her death by administering poison.
4. Upon investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants under Sections 498A and 302, I.P.C. and case was committed to Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur upon hearing the learned counsel for accused framed charges against them under Section 302/34 for committing murder of Smt. Veena Sharma and under Section 498A/34, I.P.C. for treating Smt. Veena Sharma (deceased) with cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The appellants denied the charges and demanded trial.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Rakesh Gupta, Syed Ramjan Ali, Rameshwar, Vinod Shankar Sharma, Naval Bihari Aggrawal, Virendar Kumar Sharma, Dr. S.N. Sharma, Dr. S.P. Harpalani, Bhagwant Singh and Surendar Kumar Bhagat as P.W. 1 to P.W. 10, whereafter the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and the accused-appellants produced Ram Asrey and D.S. Negi as defence witness Nos. 1 and 2. After
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
