Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ANIL KUMAR-IX, RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), JJ.
Rajesh Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2009, Government Appeal No. 3624, 3901 of 2009 & Criminal Revision No. 92, 93 of 2009
Decided On : 08-02-2019
For the Appellant : M.N. Siddiqui, Manish Tandon
The judgment underscores the importance of unassailable evidence to prove the essential ingredients of criminal offences, particularly in cases involving dowry, torture, and abetment of suicide.
Headnote:
Dowry - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498-A, 304-B, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - The court discussed the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC and the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the offences. It highlighted the requirement of proving cruelty or harassment by the accused soon before the death of the woman and the need for unassailable evidence to avail the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872. The judgment emphasized the importance of proving demand of dowry and torture by the accused in relation to it, and the lack of evidence to support the allegations.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was married to the accused and allegedly subjected to dowry demands and torture. The prosecution alleged demand of dowry and torture leading to the deceased's suicide. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove demand of dowry and torture of the deceased in relation to it soon before her death. It also concluded that the evidence did not support the allegations of abetment of suicide, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the proof of demand of dowry, torture of the deceased, and abetment of suicide by the accused, as well as the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for unassailable evidence to establish the essential ingredients of the offences, including demand of dowry and torture, and highlighted the lack of evidence to support the allegations. It also clarified the requirements for proving abetment of suicide.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the accused was allowed, and the government appeals and revisions filed by the informant were dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 306 IPC were set aside.
JUDGMENT :
RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J.
1. Heard Sri Nafees Ahmad, A.G.A, for State of U.P., Sri Amit Danga, for first informant and Sri Manish Tandon, for the accused.
2. Government of U.P. has filed Government Appeal No. 3624 of 2009 from acquittal of Rajesh Agrawal, from charges under Section 498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Government Appeal No. 3901 of 2009 from acquittal of Smt. Ram Sumirini, Yogesh Agrawal and Smt. Seeta Agrawal from all the charges; Shiv Narayan Agrawal has filed Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2009, from acquittal of Smt. Ram Sumirini, Yogesh Agrawal and Smt. Seeta Agrawal from all the charges and Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2009, from acquittal of Rajesh Agrawal, from charges under Section 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Rajesh Agrawal has filed Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2009, from his conviction and sentence dated 07.01.2009, passed by Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar, in S.T. No. 295 of 2007, State Vs Rajesh Agrawal and others, (arising out of Case Crime 268 of 2006, under Section 498A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Barra, Kanpur Nagar), convicting him under Section 306 IPC and awarding sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-with default stipulation. These appeals and revisions were arising out of same judgment as such these were consolidated and heard together.
3. On the complaint (Ex-Ka-1) of Shiv Narayan Agrawal (PW-1), FIR (Ex-Ka-7) of Case Crime No. 268 of 2006 was registered on 04.09.2006 at 9:45 hours, under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at P.S. Barra, district Kanpur Nagar, against Rajesh Agrawal (husband) and Smt. Ram Sumirini (mother-in-law), Yogesh Chandra Agrawal (Jeth) and Smt. Seeta Agrawal (Jethani) of the deceased Smt. Vibha Agrawal, by Head Moharrir Baleshwar Prasad (PW-5). It has been stated in the FIR that Vibha Agrawal, aged about 30 years, the daughter of the informant, was married to Rajesh Agrawal son of late Harish Chandra Agrawal, resident of 13/8-W-2, Juhi, Damodar Nagar, P.S. Barra, Kanpur Nagar on 18.05.2003, giving dowry according to his capacity. When his daughter came to her in-laws house, then his son-in-law Rajesh Agrawal, mother-in-law Smt. Ram Sumirini, Jeth Yogesh Chandra Agrawal and Jethani Smt. Seeta Agrawal were not happy with the dowry given by him and used to tell her to bring Rs. One lakh cash in dowry. When his daughter informed him in this respect, then he, his son and his brother-in-law Sri Ram Gopal came to Barra and thoroughly pacified the in-laws of Vibha but after their going back, they began to torture his daughter for bringing dowry. Then, he arranged Rs. 25000/-and gave it to his son-in-law Rajesh Agrawal. But after some time, they again started to threaten and assault his daughter. On 03.09.2006 at about 10:00 PM, some one informed him on telephone that his daughter had died. On this information, the informant and his wife came to Barra then found that his daughter was murdered by hanging and cutting veins of the hand due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The dead body of his daughter was kept at the house of the accused.
4. After lodging FIR, ACM Kamal Prasad Yadav (PW-4) conducted Inquest (Ex-Ka-2) of the dead body on 04.09.2006 between 11:30 to 13:00 hours. He prepared photo lash, police paper and letters to authorities (Ex-Ka-3 to Ka-6) for conducting postmortem of the deceased. He dispatched the dead body for postmortem through Constable Balwan Singh and Home-Guard Rakesh Kumar. Dr. R.K. Chaudhary (PW-7) conducted autopsy of the dead body on 04.09.2006 at 4:30 PM and prepared postmortem report (Ex-Ka-16) in which following ante-mortem injuries were noted:-
(i) Multiple incised wound on the anterior aspect of both wrists and fore am in an area of 7 cm x 4 cm x blood clot present and incised wo
