Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, JJ.
Talewar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4598 of 2014
Decided On : 22-01-2021
Dowry Death - Criminal Law - Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The judgment highlighted the interpretation of dowry death, the burden of proof, and the punishment under these sections.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of a woman due to strangulation, with allegations of dowry harassment and demand. The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence to support the charges, while the defense claimed innocence and presented their own witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court convicted the accused appellant under Section 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment, as well as under Section 498-A I.P.C. with a three-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The court exonerated the accused Jai Singh of the charges.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the death of the woman, the allegations of dowry harassment, and the burden of proof for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the autopsy report and witness testimonies to establish the guilt of the accused under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the court substituted the sentences awarded under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. The accused was ordered to serve a ten-year imprisonment with remissions, and the sentences were to be served simultaneously. The accused was to be released from jail if the period of punishment was over and he was not required in any other case.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.09, Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 1649 of 2010 under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun.
2. Facts emerging from the prosecution story are that complainant Smt. Bhagwan Devi wife of Gendan Lal, resident of Village Khaspur Gautiya, Police Station Kunwargaon, District Budaun moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun with the allegations that complainant's daughter Reshamwati aged 19 years was married to accused-appellant Talewar on 7.5.2009. She, according to her status, had given cycle, T.V. all other necessary articles and Rs.50,000/- in cash. Her daughter used to go and come to her matrimonial home. Her daughter told her that her in-laws pester her and demanded dowry, motorcycle and a buffalo and if she would not bring they would done her to death. The complainant along with others went to make settlement with in-laws of her daughter but they were adamant to demand said dowry. Complainant told that she had given enough dowry according to her status and she had no capacity to give more dowry. Complainant's son-in-law carried his wife Reshamwati on 30.5.2010 last time. Their son Bablu aged about 10 years also accompanied with them. On 11.6.2010 at about 5 p.m. one Aram Singh son of Nanhe resident of Junaiya told her that her daughter was done to death by her in-laws at about 12 noon and also locked her in a room. When complainant along with her husband, Munshilal of her in-laws and Har Nam Singh reached in-laws home of her daughter at about 6 p.m., husband of complainant found his daughter dead in the room and none of in-laws was found there. Her son Bablu were found on the spot and many persons gathered. Her son Bablu told that brother-in-law Talewar, Jaisingh (jeth) and Sukhi (jethani) being unanimous strangulated her; when he went to see in the room they made him to run away by beating him; and when he asked them later on, they told that his sister was sleeping in the room. Complainant alleged that her daughter was done to death by strangulation on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the said application and directed the Station House Officer, Ujhani to investigate the matter lodging the First Information Report on the basis of which on 19.8.2010 at about 18.30 pm. chik First Informantion Report as Case Crime No.1649 of 2010 under Sections 304B, 498A I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged.
3. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet in the court. The Magistrate took cognizance, summoned the accused and finding the case to triable by sessions court committed it to the court of Sessions on 5.2.2011. The Sessions Court framed charges against accused Talewar and Jai Singh under Sections 498A, 304 B and in alternative under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, which were read over to the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 Smt. Bhagwan Devi (complainant), P.W. Gendanlal (husband of complainant), P.W.3 Bablu (son of complainant), P.W.4 Heeralal (independent witness), P.W. 5 Dr. R.K. Verma (who conducted post mortem report), P.W. 6 Munshilal (independent witness) and P.W. 7 Head Moharrir Akhlak Ali (Investigating Officer).
5. P.W. 1 Bhagwan Devi (mother of the deceased) stated that her daughter died two years ago. She was married to Talewar one year before her death. Her death occurred due to strangulation. She proved application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. (Ext. Ka-1). She stated that she received information on the very same day when death of her daughter occurred due to strangulation. She had gone to the house of Talewar on the very same d
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions related to dowry death, including the burden of proof, punishment, and sentencing.
To secure conviction under Section 304(B) and 498(A) IPC, specific overt acts of cruelty must be established against the accused; mere familial relations are insufficient.
Prosecution must clearly establish essential ingredients of dowry-related offences; lack of consistent evidence led to acquittal.
Prosecution must prove demand for dowry and harassment soon before death to establish guilt under Section 304B IPC; absence of such evidence leads to acquittal.
Criminal Law - Ingredient of harassment or cruelty soon before her death - The determination of the period, which can come within the term "soon before death" is left to be determined by the courts d....
The prosecution must establish the commission of the alleged offense beyond all reasonable doubt, and there is a need for unimpeachable evidence in relation to dowry demand and the establishment of a....
In dowry death cases, prosecution must prove unnatural death within seven years of marriage with cruelty/harassment soon before by husband/relatives linked to dowry demand to raise rebuttable presump....
The judgment underscores that in dowry death cases, the prosecution must prove cruelty and demand for dowry beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction.
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
