Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 868

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Mohit Kumar And Another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 7380 of 2019 With Criminal Appeal No. 6840 of 2019
Decided On : 07-10-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jagmohan Singh, Lavkush Kumar Bhatt.
For the Respondent: G.A.

Point of law : it was not proper and safe to place reliance on his statement given in examination-in-chief, so as to hold the appellants guilty, particularly when there was no specific mention of any incident of dowry demand and harassment or any cruelty of such nature which could drive the deceased to end her life.

Headnote:
D.P. Act - Section 3/4 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 302 read with 34 304-B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 207, 313 and 161 - Indian Penal Code (45 of 1861) - Section 30 - Evidence Act - Section 113B - Cruelty and harassment - Dowry death - Death within seven years of marriage - Presumption under - Daughter being aggrieved with daily torture poured kerosene oil on herself and set her ablaze in the presence of all family members - Informant Ramprasad is resident of village and his daughter - Some days of marriage, in-laws began to torture her daughter for chain and other items not being given in marriage - jewelry from her which was given by her parents. On sent S.M.S. which meant that he did not need her - Her father Ramprasad came and took her daughter - On her mother-in-law levelled charge of theft on her and said, give money otherwise result will be bad his daughter being aggrieved with daily torture poured kerosene oil on herself and set her ablaze in presence of all family members but no one tried to save his daughter. If her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and husband had tried to save her, she would have survived - Whether the testimony of PW-1 as deposed during examination-in-chief and retracted in cross-examination is wholly reliable and conviction can be based on it.
Finding of the Court : Explanation to Section 304B refers to dowry" as having the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Act', the question "what is the periphery of the dowry as defined therein? The argument is, there has to be an agreement at the time of the marriage in view of the words "agreed to be given" occurring herein, and in the absence of any such evidence it would not constitute to be dowry. It is noticeable, as this definition by amendment includes not only the period before and at the marriage but also the period subsequent to the marriage - Demand neither conceives nor would conceive of any agreement - If for convicting any offender, agreement for dowry is to be proved; hardly any offenders would come under the clutches of law. When Section 304B refers to "demand of dowry", it refers to the demand of property or valuable security as referred to in the definition of "dowry" under the Act.
Result : Appeals are allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2019 passed in S.T. No.27 of 2016 (State of U.P. vs. Jai Jai Ram and 2 others) arising out of Crime No.255 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad by which appellants Jai Jai Ram and Smt. Bhagyawati have been convicted and sentenced under Section 304-B for a period of 7 years rigorous imprisonment and appellant Mohit Kumar for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 498-A I.P.C. for a period of 1 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- for each and under Section 4 D.P. Act for a period of 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000 for each.

2. Facts in brief are that informant Ramprasad is resident of village Nagariya Jawahar, Police Station Rajepur, District Farrukhabad and his daughter Rinky @ Neelam was married to Mohit Kumar in May, 2013 who is resident of Jahanganj. After some days of marriage, the in-laws began to torture her daughter for chain and other items not being given in the marriage. They took off the jewelry from her which was given by her parents. On 24th July, Mohit Kumar sent S.M.S. which meant that he did not need her. Her father Ramprasad came and took her daughter. On 17.08.2015 her mother-in-law levelled the charge of theft of Rs.2500/- on her and said, give the money otherwise result will be bad. Thereafter, his daughter being aggrieved with daily torture poured kerosene oil on herself and set her ablaze in the presence of all family members but no one tried to save his daughter. If her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and husband had tried to save her, she would have survived. On 21.08.2015 tehrir as aforesaid was given by informant at the Police Station Jahanganj where case was registered as Crime No.255 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. The detail of which was entered into G.D. as Report No.24.

3. On the date of incident i.e. 17.08.2015 at about 17:30 Rinky @ Neelam died in the hospital and information thereof was given to police on the basis of which H.C.P. Rajendra Prasad proceeded to the hospital at Farrukhabad for conducting inquest of deceased where Rajendra Prasad Chaudhari, Tehsildar Sadar, Farrukhabad, constable Satyapal and home guard Pawanesh Pratap were present. Inquest of deceased Smt. Rinky @ Neelam was conducted by Tehsildar, R.P. Chaudhari in presence of the witnesses. Thereafter, dead body was got sealed, necessary papers were prepared with the inquest report and dead body was sent for post-mortem to District Hospital, Farrukhabad by constable Satyapal Singh and home guard Pawnesh Pratap Singh.

4. On 18.08.2015 at about 3:00 P.M. Dr. Brajesh Singh and B.S. Verma, Medical Officer, Fatehgarh conducted autopsy of the dead body of the deceased Smt. Rinky @ Neelam and prepared post-mortem report Ex Ka-6. Details of which are as under :

External Examination

(i) age 23 years.

(ii) Average built body, eyes closed, mouth partly open

(iii) Dressing ointment all over the body at places, rigor mortis present both exremities, body kept in ice, cut open mark on medial side left ankle.

Antemortem Injuries

(I) Superficial to deep burn all over the body except head, lower part of both legs, head and sole skin black and peeled off at places, subcutaneous tissue present.

Internal Examination

(i) Head, Skull and Membrane – NAD

(ii) Brain – congested

(iii) Oribal, Nasal and Aural Cavities Findings – NAD

(iv) Neck, Mouth, Tongue Pharynx, Thyroid, Larynx and Vocal Cords - NAD

(v) Chest, Ribs and Chest Wall – NAD

(vi) Oesophagus, Trachea and Bronchial Tree - NAD

(vii) Pleaura, Pleaural Cavities and Lung Findings – Congested

(viii) Pericardium and Pericardial Sac. - NAD

(ix) Heart findings and weight – Both Chambers Full

(x) Large Blood Vessels – NAD

(xi) Abdomen and Abdominal Wall – Opened