Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAI TYAGI, J.
Roomali And 3 Others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5444 of 2018
Decided On : 21-10-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 304B, 201 and 302 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3/4 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 113B and 106 - Presumption as to dowry death - Offence of murder - Complainant father of deceased - Complainant that he given sufficient dowry according to his financial capacity but husband and in-laws of Amlesh were not satisfied with that and after sometime of marriage her husband started torturing her by abusing and beating her for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry. They were demanding a buffalo - Jewellery in form of gold chain and earrings - They were demanding a buffalo - Cash and jewellery in form of gold chain and earrings etc - Complainant’s daughter remained unable to meet out demand - Complainant contacted her in-laws and tried to make them understand and promised to meet out their demand as and when he will be able to do it - Accused persons became quiet for sometime but after sometime they started torturing his daughter again.
Finding of the Court : There is no such evidence on record that dead body of deceased Amlesh was concealed and buried under earth by any of appellants - There is no evidence against appellants that they destroyed evidence. Hence, their conviction under Section 201 IPC also cannot be sustained. As far as demand of dowry and harassment in pursuant thereof is concerned - husband of deceased is not appellant in this present appeal - Demanded, are not such for which present appellants can be direct beneficiaries - Court is of considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove charges framed against appellants - Trial court has wrongly convicted appellants.
Result : Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 20.08.2018 passed by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, in Session Trial No.590 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No.176 of 2012 (State Vs. Smt. Romali and others) under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-Sahswan, District-Budaun, in which appellants Satya Ram, Smt. Roomali, Smt. Rekha and Smt. Rajwala were convicted and sentenced under Section 304B IPC for ten years R.I., under Section 498A for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, under Section 201 IPC for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- and under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for one year along with fine of Rs.1,000/-.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Rohan, the complainant and father of the deceased, submitted a written report at Police Station-Sahswan on 17.02.2012 with the allegations that her daughter Amlesh was married with Devendra r/o village Dhobai. He has given sufficient dowry according to his financial capacity but husband and in-laws of Amlesh were not satisfied with that and after sometime of marriage her husband Devendra, father-in-law Satya Ram, mother-in-law, Nanad-Rekha and Jethani started torturing her by abusing and beating her for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry. They were demanding a buffalo, Rs.50,000/- cash and jewellery in the form of gold chain and earrings etc. When complainant’s daughter remained unable to meet out the demand, they turned out her of the home. Complainant contacted her in-laws and tried to make them understand and promised to meet out their demand as and when he will be able to do it. Accused persons became quiet for sometime but after sometime they started torturing his daughter again and yesterday night of 16/17.02.2012 all the above-mentioned accused persons along with Rajeev and Rama of their village murdered his daughter for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry and disappeared her dead body. Laturi of village Dhobai gave this information to him on phone in the morning. On getting this information, he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter but neither his daughter nor her in-laws were found there.
3. On this written report, the first information report was registered at P.S.-Sahswan, District-Budaun against Devendra, Satya Ram, mother-in-law of the deceased, Rekha-Jethaniof the deceased, Rajeev and Rama under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. After registering of the case as above, on 21.02.2012, i.e., after four days of first information report, another report Ex.Ka-2 was submitted by the complainant at the same police station, stating that he had lodged first information report regarding death and destruction of the evidence regarding the murder of his daughter on 17.02.2012. Thereafter, he along with his family members started searching for his daughter and on 21.02.2012, the dead body of his daughter was found buried in a pit at the bank of river Mahawa in the jungle of village-Rasoolpur Danse.
5. Police went to the spot as told by the complainant in his report dated 21.02.2012 and recovered the dead body of the deceased from there, which was kept in a jute bag and was buried five feet below the earth. Recovery memo Ex.Ka-3 was prepared.
6. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against offenders Smt. Roomali, Smt. Rajvala, Smt. Rekha, Rajeev, Smt. Rama under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under Section 498A, 304B and 201 IPC.
7. Offender, the husband of deceased, was declared juvenile and his case was sent to other concerned court for trial. It is told by learned counsel for the appellants that his trial is still pending in the court.
8. The trial of the rest of all the accused persons proceeded and accused/appellants Satya Ram, Smt. Roo
Point of law : Dowry death - Conviction set aside - Articles, said to be demanded, are not such for which present appellants can be direct beneficiaries. Moreover, evidence on the above point is not ....
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, establishing that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry demands, leading to her suicide, thus satisfying the legal requirements fo....
The judgment established the need for a proximate and live link between dowry harassment and the woman's death, and emphasized the statutory presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evid....
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death to sustain a conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of Sec. 304-B, and once proved, the presumption under Sec. 113-B comes into play. The accused can then attempt to displace the deemed c....
Point of Law : For offence Under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, punishment is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
The court affirmed that a conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC is established when a woman dies shortly after marriage due to cruelty for dowry demands, while simultaneous conviction un....
(1) Dowry death – “Soon before” cannot be interpreted to mean “immediately before”, rather prosecution has to show that there existed a “proximate and live link” between cruelty and consequential dea....
Dowry death – Mere death of deceased being unnatural in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict accused under Section 304B and 498A of IPC.
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
