Seema vs State of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 948

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 948

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Smt. Seema – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 4597, 4599, 4601 of 2015
Decided On : 30-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Atul Tej Kulshrestha, Rajrshi Gupta, Vinay Kumar Khokhar, Vinay Singh.
For the Respondents: Braham Singh, Sushil Kumar Tewari.

Headnote:
Dowry Death - Criminal Appeals - Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201, 302 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for various offences including dowry death, based on the death of the informant's daughter within seven years of her marriage and allegations of cruelty and harassment for dowry.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence of dowry death.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the death of the deceased, whether it was a case of dowry death or an accidental death as claimed by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the burden of proof lying upon the accused in a criminal proceeding and the need to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards to his guilt. It also highlighted the importance of considering the defence evidence and the principle that when the genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the conviction judgment and order of the Trial Court were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

JUDGMENT :

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. These criminal appeals have been preferred by appellants Smt. Seema, Devendra Singh and Praveen Singh against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2015 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 1549 of 2008 (State vs. Devendra Singh and Others) arising out of case crime no. 701 of 2005 under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201, 302 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Asmauli, District Moradabad convicting and sentencing all the appellants for the offence under section 498-A IPC to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months further rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under section 304-B IPC to undergo imprisonment for life, for the offence under section 201 IPC to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months further rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months further rigorous imprisonment. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Factual scenario as culled out from the F.I.R. is that the informant (PW-1) solemnized the marriage of his daughter with Devendra Singh (accused) on 8.4.2004 in which he spent around six lac rupees, but her husband and in-laws’ were not satisfied with the dowry and they used to blame the daughter of the informant for not fulfilling their demand. Daughter of the informant had told this fact to him and other family members when she returned from her matrimonial house. On 30.6.2004, when the informant went to meet his daughter at her in-laws’ house, she told that her jeth, jethani and mother-in-law had made a demand of rupees five lacs and started extending torture to her. On 31.10.2004, the informant went to her daughter’s place on the occasion of karwachauth and made complaint to Devendra, the husband, regarding harassment and additional demand of dowry. On 18.11.2004, the informant again visited her daughter’s matrimonial house, but no one was found over there. On query being made, the neighbours informed that Devendra, his mother, his brother and bhabhi have committed the murder of her daughter due to demand of dowry and also destroyed the evidence thereof. Informant was not informed regarding the death of his daughter. The Police did not lodge any F.I.R. despite efforts of the informant and ultimately by order of the Court, F.I.R. was lodged.

3. Initially, the investigation was made by C.O. Harendra Pratap Singh (PW-4), but subsequently it was transferred to C.O. Brijesh Kumar Srivastava (PW-5), who conducting the proceedings of investigation, recorded statements of witnesses, prepared site plan Ext.A4 and after completion of entire formalities, charge-sheets Ext.A5 and Ext.A6 were submitted to the Court by the last I.O. Dpy. S.P. Sushil Kumar (PW-6).

4. Magistrate concerned took cognizance in the matter and the case, being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. The Trial Court framed charges against accused Devendra Singh, Praveen Singh and Smt. Seema for the offence under Sections 498A, 304-B, 302, 201, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on 18.7.2011.

6. Accused denied the charges framed against them, pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. Accused Smt. Krishna died before framing of charge and the case was abated against her.

8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses. Out of them, PW-1 is Bhagwant Singh, the informant, PW-2 Sudeep, the brother of the deceased, PW-3 Hukum Singh, the uncle of the deceased, PW-4 Circle Officer Harendra Pratap Singh, the first investigating officer, PW-5 Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, the subsequent investigating officer and PW-6 Circle Officer Sushil Kumar, the last investigating officer.

9. As per documentary