Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddharth, J.
Rahul and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 4955, 5108 and 4942 of 2018
Decided On : 02-03-2021
Dowry Death - Criminal Appeals - 304-B, 498-A, 316 I.P.C., 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - The court discussed the essential ingredients of section 304-B I.P.C., the burden of proof on the accused, and the presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act. It also considered the medical evidence, the conduct of the accused, and the relevance of the pregnancy of the deceased. The court found that the death was not due to burns or bodily injuries, but 'otherwise than under normal circumstances'. It also noted the lack of concrete evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry, and the absence of proof that the accused were responsible for the suicide. The court reduced the sentences of the appellants and acquitted one of them based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was allegedly harassed for dowry by her husband and in-laws, leading to her death. The prosecution presented evidence of harassment and cruelty, while the defence argued that the death was a suicide due to unwanted pregnancy and false representations by the husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of section 304-B I.P.C. and the burden of proof on the accused. It also noted inconsistencies in the evidence and lack of concrete proof of harassment for dowry. The court reduced the sentences of the appellants and acquitted one of them based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.
Issues: The key issues were the cause of the deceased's death, the presence of harassment for dowry, and the responsibility of the accused for the suicide. The court also considered the relevance of the pregnancy of the deceased and the conduct of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the essential ingredients of the offence, the burden of proof on the accused, and the relevance of medical and circumstantial evidence. It also considered the conduct of the accused and the presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the criminal appeals, reducing the sentences of the appellants and acquitting one of them based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.
ORDER :
Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Nirvikar Gupta and Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsels for the appellants, Sri Dharam Veer Singh and Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsels for the informant, Sri Vikas Goswami and Smt. Alpana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The above noted criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.8.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No. 2, Hathras in S.T. No. 105 of 2013 (State Vs. Rahul and others), arising out of case crime No. 404 of 2011 under sections 304-B, 498-A, 316 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras convicting and sentencing the appellants for commission of offence under section 304-B I.P.C., to ten years rigorous imprisonment; for offence under section 316 I.P.C. to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine one year additional rigorous imprisonment; under section 498-A I.P.C. to three years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of six months and under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act to two years imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine to undergo three months additional imprisonment. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that informant, Anil Singh Tomar, lodged the First Information Report dated 3.8.2011 alleging that his sister, Alka alias Pooja, was married to Rahul son of Nihal Singh; that soon after the marriage her husband, Rahul, mother-in-law, Smt. Munni, elder brother-in-law (Jeth) Chetan, elder sister-in-law (Jithani) Rashmi, sisters-in-law(Nanad) Deepu and Pooja and brother-in-law (Nandoi), Promod Kumar, started harassing her for an amount Rs. Two lacs and a WagnoR car in dowry;that his sister used to inform about the demand of dowry by the family members of her matrimonial home; that his relatives repeatedly talked to the members of the matrimonial home of his sister but they did not relent and on 3.8.2011 at 5.30 A.M. he received information on mobile phone that his sister has been murdered; that he reached the scene of occurrence and found her dead body lying on the bed.
4. The First Information Report was lodged on 3.8.2012 at about 8.40 hours against the accused persons, namely, Rahul, Pramod Kumar, Chetan, Munni Devi and Smt. Rashmi Devi. The postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The investigating officer prepared site plan, and inquest report and after recording the statements of the witnesses submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants only. The charges were framed against the accused persons by the court below under sections 498-A, 304-B, 316 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused persons denied the charges and sought trial.
5. The persecution examined P.W. 1, Pramod Solanki, who stated that he is friend of the informant; that he attended the marriage of Pooja and when he went to her matrimonial home on 1st Holi festival she informed him that the members of her matrimonial home are demanding a WagnoR car and Rs. 2 lacs and are harassing her for the same. At 5.45 hours on 3.8.2011 informant informed him on phone that Alka has been murdered by the members of her matrimonial home. He reached her matrimonial home and found her dead body lying on bed. None of the members of her matrimonial home were present. He wrote the First Information Report as dictated by the informant. He admitted his signature on the inquest report of the deceased and further stated that after postmortem when the dead body of the deceased was cremated none of the members of her matrimonial home were present.
6. P.W. 2, Anil Singh Tomar, the informant, stated that he got his sister, Alka, married on 2.12.2011. He gave Rs. 5 lacs in cash and other house hold goods in the dowry to her, but accused persons were not
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
