SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(All) 891

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Sageer And Naseer @ Jaheer – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.6842 of 2009
Decided on : 28-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.P. Tiwari, R.N.Maurya

The reliability of dying declarations, the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the reformative and corrective approach of criminal jurisprudence were central legal points established in the judgment.

Headnote:

Dowry Death - Criminal Appeal - Sections 304B I.P.C., 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - [304B I.P.C., 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act] - The court analyzed the evidence and found the dying declaration to be reliable, leading to the conviction of the accused under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. The court also discussed the legal principles related to dying declarations and the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry by her in-laws, leading to her death. The prosecution relied on the dying declaration and other evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Hostile witnesses and contradictions in the statements were addressed by the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the dying declaration to be reliable and the accused guilty under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. The court also discussed the legal principles related to dying declarations and the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the dying declaration, the credibility of witnesses, and the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the reliability of the dying declaration and discussed the legal principles related to dying declarations and the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also considered the absence of defense evidence and the burden of proof on the accused.

Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. The court modified the sentence, considering the reformative and corrective approach of criminal jurisprudence, and ordered the release of the accused if not required in any other offense.

JUDGMENT :

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.11.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 949 of 2003 (Crime No. 323 of 2002) State Vs. Sageer and Ors, under Sections 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Ijjat Nagar, District-Bareilly convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 304-B I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo imprisonment for two years, further imposing fine of Rs. 10,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to undergo 2 months additional imprisonment.

2. The prosecution story as culled out from the FIR is that the deceased, the sister of the informant, was married with accused Sageer. The in-laws of the deceased were demanding colour T.V. and motorcycle as additional dowry and she was subjected to cruelty on account of that demand. She used to tell the incidents of cruelty to her family members, who expressed their inability to the accused persons but they did not pay any attention to it and the harassment continued. On 27.4.2002 on information by a villager, the informant along with his family members reached the house of the accused persons where he found his sister bitterly burnt and she told that her husband Sageer, mother-in-law Jaitoon, brother-in-law Naseer and Ameer and sister-in-law Munija Begum caught hold her in the night about 9.00 pm. and her husband poured acid upon her in order to do away with her.

3. The FIR was lodged and investigation started. During investigation the injured died and Section 304-B I.P.C. was added to the matter.

4. The I.O. proceeded to record the statement of witnesses, performed inquest, sent the body of the deceased for autopsy, inspected the place of occurrence and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons

5. The accused persons appeared before the Magisterial Court, the case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Magistrate.

6. Charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against the accused persons who denied of the charges and claimed to be tried.

7. The trial started and the prosecution in order to prove its case examined 12 witnesses in all as P.W.1 the informant/brother of the deceased, P.W.2 Smt. Shahjahan, mother of the deceased, P.W.3 Altaf, brother of the deceased, P.W.4 Constable Dharampal Singh, Scribe of the FIR, P.W.5 S.D.M Karmveer Singh, witness of inquest report, P.W.6 Dr. A.K. Jain, who performed the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased, P.W.7 Dr. Kripal Singh, who prepared injury report of the deceased when she was alive, P.W.8 Tehsildar Shiv Bhajan, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, P.W.9 Rajendra Kumar Additional S.P. and second I.O. of the case, P.W.10 Constable Rakesh Dubey, who has been examined as secondary witness for the first I.O. S.I. Bihari Lal Yadav.

8. In documentary evidence, the prosecution relied upon written report Ex. Ka-1, application for post mortem Ex.-Ka-2, inquest report Ex.Ka-3, FIR Ex.Ka-4, G.D. Ex.Ka-5, specimen seal Ka-6, photo nash Ex.Ka-7, letter to R.I. Ex.Ka-8, letter to C.M.O. Ex.Ka-9, chalan lash Ex.Ka-10, autopsy report Ex.Ka-11, injury report Ex.Ka-12, dying declaration Ex.Ka13, charge sheets Ex.Ka-14, Ex.Ka-16 and site plan Ex.Ka-15.

9. After completion of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances and evidences were put to the accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they told the whole prosecution story and evidence as false and fabricated and claimed to be innocent. Accused Sageer stated that at the time of incident he was at Bikaner in connection with his job and came back on 27.04.2002 on being informed by his mother by telephone regarding the incident of the burning of his wife. After coming back when he went to the hospital, the treatment of his wife was going on but the police arrested him in the same evening. He has further stated





        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top