Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Subhash Chandra Sharma, Sunita Agarwal, JJ.
Smt. Rajola and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3246 of 2012, Criminal Appeal No. 3641 of 2012
Decided On : 18-05-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 r/w 34, 498-A, 304-B – Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 – Section 207, 313 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 3 and 4 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106, 113B - Dowry death – Offence of Murder - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Presumption as to dowry death - Whether finding given by learned trial court convicting accused/appellants under Section 302 IPC with aid of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act and acquitting them under Section 304-B IPC on basis of evidence on record is correct or not - Whether soon before her death deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives and such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with demand of dowry - 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 (Para 56).
Findings of Court – Keeping in mind principle of sentence under Section 304- B IPC as enunciated by Apex Court, in facts and circumstances of present case, occurrence which took place in year 2006 and that appellants have already undergone sentence for more than nine years, in Court considered opinion, interest of justice would be served if appellants are awarded sentence under Section 304-B IPC to imprisonment for a period of ten years, each - Conviction of appellants for other offences and sentences of imprisonment imposed for each offence awarded by trial court are hereby affirmed - All sentences shall run concurrently.
Result – Appeals are partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.
1. These criminal appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 2007 (State Vs. Sunil Kumar Yadav and another), arising out of Crime No. 193 of 2006, under Section 302 read with Section 34, 498-A IPC & Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Erach, District Jhansi, whereby the appellants Smt. Rajola, Raj Kumar @ Majhaley, Smt. Ram Dulari @ Uma, Neetu @ Ram Kumar and Sunil Kumar Yadav have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-each; in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of six months; under Section 498-A IPC with three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-each; in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of two months and under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act with one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-each, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 01.11.2006 at about 5.10 a.m., an F.I.R. was lodged at the police Station Erach, District Jhansi by the informant Manmohan Singh, the father of the deceased r/o Village Puraini, Police Station Bhoganipur, District Kanpur Dehat by filing a written report stating therein that his daughter Smt. Anita Yadav aged about 26 years was wedded to Sunil Kumar Yadav R/s Village Dikauli, Police Station Erach, District Jhansi six years prior to the incident. Sufficient dowry was given in marriage, but his daughter told him that her husband Sunil Kumar, mother-in-law Smt. Rajola, brother-in-law Raj Kumar @ Majhale, his wife and younger brother-in-law Neetu aged about 20 years used to torture her in relation to the demand of Rs. One lac for purchasing a tractor. The first informant stated that he helped as much as he could to purchase the tractor. Again, they pressed his daughter to bring a motorcycle from her father and subjected her to harassment for not fulfilling their demand. His daughter informed him about this then he along with other members of his family went to village Dikauli and expressed their inability to pay money for the motorcycle and also asked to bring his daughter with him but they did not see her off. The first informant returned to his village. On 31.10.2006, in the night at about 8 p.m., his daughter phoned and told that the inmates of her sasural were beating her and pleaded him to rescue her. At that information, he along with the other family members arrived at the matrimonial home of his daughter at about 2 o’clock in the night where he found the door of the house closed from outside. He got it opened by Rameshwar, uncle of his son-in-law and there he found that his daughter Anita was lying dead in the room who was set ablaze. On the basis of the written report (Tahreer), the case was registered as Crime No. 193 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. The detail of the case was entered in the G.D. report No. 6.
3. The investigation of the case was handed over to the circle officer Garautha.
4. The inquest of the deceased Smt. Anita, was conducted by S.I. Lalit Kishor on the same day and the report was prepared by him along with other relevant papers required for the purpose of post-mortem. Dead body was sealed and handed over to constable Satendra Kumar and Ram Sewak who brought it to the mortuary C.H.C. Mauranipur, Jhansi.
5. The post-mortem was conducted on 1.11.2006. It is mentioned in the post mortem report that the dead body brought by constable Satendra Kumar and Ram Sewak was received in a sealed cloth, seal on which tallied with the sample seal. The findings recorded in the post mortem report are as under:
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 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 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....
The court ruled that to establish dowry death under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must show cruelty for dowry was inflicted soon before the victim's death, with a clear link between the two.
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 reinforces the legal framework surrounding dowry death, emphasizing the importance of proving prior harassment related to dowry demands and the application of presumptions of guilt under....
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
