Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANIL KUMAR OJHA, J.
Smt. Kunwari And Others – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.461 of 1992
Decided on : 04-08-2021
Dowry Death - Criminal Appeal - Sections 147, 304B/201 I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 304-B of I.P.C. - The court discussed the essential elements required to convict an accused for an offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. and highlighted the need to establish the deceased's death within seven years of marriage, cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with dowry demand, and the role of the accused in the same. The court also referenced the interpretations and legal principles established in the cases of Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P. and Kansraj v. State of Punjab to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage, allegedly due to bodily injuries and harassment for dowry demands. The prosecution accused the appellant of being involved in the death of the woman.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the deceased died within seven years of her marriage and due to bodily injuries, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands. The court also noted that the deceased was sent to her in-laws' house on the assurance of good behavior by her husband and father-in-law, and there was no evidence of ill-treatment by the appellant before her death.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the demand of dowry, the role of the appellant in the deceased's death, and the establishment of cruelty or harassment soon before the death in connection with dowry demands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to establish the essential elements of Section 304-B I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt, including the link between the cruelty or harassment and the demand for dowry. It also highlighted the importance of specific allegations and evidence against the accused in cases of dowry death.
Final Decision: The appeal of the appellant was allowed, and he was acquitted of the charges. The judgment and order against the appellant were set aside, and the lower court was directed to comply with the decision.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant no. 2, Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, submitted a report dated 13.07.2018 stating therein that appellant no.1 Smt. Kunwari Devi and appellant no.3 Ram Pratap, have died. So, vide order dated 11.04.2019 appeal against appellant no. 1 Smt. Kunwari Devi and appellant no. 3 Ram Pratap was abated.
Thus, the case of appellant no.2 Ram Autar has to be examined only.
3. Challenge in this criminal appeal is the judgment and order dated 20.02.1992 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in S.T. No. 361 of 1989 (State Vs Ram Baran and others), under Sections 147, 304B/201 I.P.C., P.S.-Naini, District-Allahabad, whereby the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, convicted the appellant no. 2 Ram Autar and sentenced him to undergo 7 years R.I., under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.
4. Tersely put, the prosecution case is that complainant Mataru Lal lodged an F.I.R. on 25.02.1989 at 12.50 p.m, at P.S.-Naini, District-Allahabad, stating therein that Smt. Bitola, deceased, was his daughter. She was married with accused Ram Baran, two years before this incident. Accused Ram Baran, his father Khelari and brothers of Ram Baran accused Ram Pratap and Ram Autar were unhappy with the victim, because they were demanding a T.V. set in dowry. Some day before the incident, accused persons attempted to kill the victim by causing her burn injuries. The complainant took the victim, to his house and after treatment the victim recovered. Thereafter, accused persons Ram Baran and Khelari assured the complainant that no untoward incident will take place in future. Believing the assurance, he sent his daughter, the deceased to the house of her in-laws about one month before the alleged incident. On 25.02.1989 at about 8.30 a.m. the accused Ram Baran came to the house of the complainant and asked his son Raj Kumar whether the deceased has come to his house. He further told him that the deceased has run away with 3kg. Silver and Rs. 500/-in cash in the previous night. On this, the complainant and his family members searched the victim. They suspected that the accused persons might have killed the deceased. The complainant along with family members went to the village of accused persons and there they found the dead body of the victim Smt. Bitola in a well situated towards east of the village abadi. The complainant further stated in the complaint that accused persons had killed the deceased because he could not give T.V. set in dowry. Accused persons killed the deceased, threw her dead body into the well. At the time of incident the victim was nearly 20 years old.
5. On the written report submitted by complainant Mataru Lal, the case was registered at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, in Crime No. 79 of 89, under Sections 147, 304-B, 201 IPC, against accused Ram Baran, Ram Pratap, Ram Autar, Khelari and Kunwari Devi, mother of Ram Baran.
6. Investigating officer started investigation and inquest of the deceased Bitola Devi was done by Nayab Tehsildar, Karachana on 25.02.1989. Postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted 27.03.1989 and statement of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
After completion of the investigation, investigating officer filed charge sheet against accused-persons namely Ram Baran, Ram Autar, Ram Prasad and Smt. Kuwari.
7. The then Judicial Magistrate-IV, Allahabad, committed the case of accused persons to the court of sessions for trial. The then the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, on 16.01.1990 charged accused Ram Autar, Ram Pratap, Ram Baran and Smt. Kunwari, under Section 147, 304B read with section 149 IPC and 201 IPC. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
Prosecution was called to adduce the evidence.
8. Prosecution produced P.W. 1, Mataru Lal, father of the deceased, P.W. 2 Satya Narain Bharti, s
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
