Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BACHCHOO LAL, SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Dharmendra Rajbhar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2017
Decided On : 19-01-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/34 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section ¾ - Evidence Act - Section 106 - Additional imprisonment for a period of one year - Penalty - Prosecution case in brief is that the daughter of informant, was wedded to appellant - Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage but her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband were not satisfied with the dowry –
Finding of the Court:
He had denied the suggestion of causing death by using saree - In this way, death of deceased is not proved to be caused by hanging and the story as shown by father-in-law of deceased seems to be false and his presence on the spot stands proved - He was in exclusive possession of the house at the time of commission of incident - Actual fact was in his knowledge and he would have disclosed it - If he did not disclose or keep mum or disclosed the fact but false, he would become liable for the commission of crime with the help of Section 106 of Evidence Act but this factual situation was not taken in view by the learned trial judge while concluding the judgment and acquitting the informant of the charges –
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. This criminal appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 15.12.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Session Trial No. 274 of 2015 (State vs. Heera Lal and Others) arising out of Crime No. 271 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sureri, District Jaunpur by which appellant Dharmendra Rajbhar has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that Shakuntala Devi, the daughter of informant Pardeshi Rajbhar, was wedded to appellant- Dharmendra Rajbhar on 08.07.2008. Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage but her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband were not satisfied with the dowry. They were making demand for a golden ring and motorcycle but informant could not fulfill the demand owing to his meagre financial conditions. Consequently, the in-laws were harassing his daughter. She always told about this to the informant and members of his family. On 11.06.2015 at about 8.30 P.M. informant was communicated by the villagers that her daughter had been killed at about 8.30 P.M. by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. When he arrived at the spot, dead body of his daughter was lying at the door but her inmates were absent. All of them fled away leaving their home. He lodged an F.I.R. on 13.06.2015 at Police Station Sureri.
3. On 12.6.2015 at about 0.10 a.m. Hiralal Rajbhar (father-in-law of deceased) informed the police at police station Sureri that his daughter-in-law w/o Dharmendra Rajbhar aged about 27 years wedded in the year 2008 was aggrieved with matter related to tonsure (mundan) of her child. She hanged in the room while locking the door from inside. When door was not opened for long, she was called out but no response came from inside. They broke open the door and found her hanging with ceiling fan at about 8.30 p.m. He got down her dead body and lay it on the cot. This information was entered into G.D. Report No. 2 the same day.
4. Inquest of deceased Shakuntala was conducted by Nayab-Tehshidar Pradeep Tripathi on 12.6.2015 at about 8 O'clock in presence of witnesses. Dead body was sealed and handed over to constable Tribuwan Singh and constable Jaiprakesh Narayan for post-mortem. On 12.6.2015 at about 2 p.m. Post-mortem of dead body of deceased Shakuntala was conducted by Dr. Om Prakash Singh.
5. The details of post-mortem report are as below:
Ante-mortem injuries: No any external injury present.
Head: Scalp and skull found congested. Brain-congested.
Neck: mouth, tongue, pharynx-congested. Larynx, vocal dordscongested. Trachea Hyoid bone was found intact.
Chest: Ribs and chest wall were found NAD. Oesophagus found congested. Trachea and Bronchial Tree were found congested. Pleura found congested. Lungs found congested. Pericardium Pericardial Sac found congested. Right heart filled and left empty. Large blood vessels-NAD.
Abdomen: Condition of Abdominal wall was pale. Perinoteum and Peritonial Cavity pale. Stomach wall condition contents and smell-pale. Small intestine including appendix-gases present. Fecal matter and gases were present in large intestine. Spleen-pale. Pancreas-pale. Condition and weight of kidney-NAD. Pelvic cavity Tissues-pale. Genital organs-non gravid uterus. Spinal column and spinal cord-not opened.
Death approximately about one day.
Cause of death was Asphyxia as a result of smothering.
6. Investigation of the case was handed-over to Circle Officer Virendra Kumar Srivastava who started the investigation and recorde
The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fac....
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
(1) Courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women.(2) Burden of proof – Ordinary rule that applies to criminal trials that onus lies on prosecution to prove guilt of accu....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the accused's failure to provide an alibi.
The prosecution must establish basic facts before invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act; failure to do so results in the benefit of doubt for the accused.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in cases of dowry death, and circumstantial evidence must be conclusive to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court established that in dowry death cases, the prosecution must prove a proximate link between dowry demands and the victim's death, shifting the burden of proof to the accused.
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
The prosecution's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
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
