IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Smt Angoori Devi and others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4094 of 2016
Decided on : 14-09-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A, 304B, 302, 34, 300, 299 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3, 4 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113B – Offence Punishable – Culpable homicide – Quashing First Information Report – Matrimonial discard – Offence of Dowry Death – Unnatural circumstances – Burn injuries – Punishment for murder - Penalty for demanding dowry - Penalty for giving or taking dowry - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention - Whether deceased was done to death, however, cause of death due to Septisemic Shock will not take out from purview of Section 300 IPC – Held, Court have come to irresistible conclusion that role of appellants is clear from dying declaration and other records – However, point which has also weighed with this Court are that deceased had survived for around two and half months after occurrence and ultimately died of septicemia – In that view of matter, Court are of opinion that conviction of appellants under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is required to be converted to that under Section 304(I) of Indian Penal Code and in view of same appeal is partly allowed and sentence of accused persons/appellant is reduced to period of 10 years with remission – Period already under gone can be sustained in full period of incarceration – Appeal Partly Allowed.
JUDGMENT:
Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.
Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2016/29.7.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Hathras, in S.T. No. 493 of 2014, State v. Arjun Singh and one another, S.T. No. 194 of 2015, State v. Bachchoo Singh and one another and S.T. No. 146 of 2015, State v. Sukhvir, arising out of Case Crime No. 322 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Chandpa, District Hathras, whereby the applicants have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default to undergo 6 months additional simple Imprisonment.
3. All the three sessions trials were consolidated with S.T. No. 493 of 2014, State v. Arjun Singh and the another, which was mentioned as leading case.
4. The factual scenario as emerged out from the FIR (Ext. K-3) is that Smt. Hema, sister of the informant Sunil Kumar was married to the accused Arjun Singh on 1.5.2013. After marriage she was harassed and subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by her husband Arjun Singh, mother in-law Anguri Devi, Jeth Bachchoo Singh and Jethani Anjali Devi, who were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and were demanding Rs. 50,000/- more as dowry. When the informant and his father shown their inability to pay this huge amount, they set ablaze the aforesaid Hema on 3.5.2014 at her matrimonial home. The informant on information went there and took away his sister to the hospital and when they have no money left for treatment, they left away Smt. Hema to her matrimonial home on 3.5.2014. The in-laws of the deceased took no interest in her treatment and ultimately she died on 19.7.2014.
A written report Ext. K-1 was given to the station officer at P.S. Chandpa, District Hathras by the informant and FIR was lodged on 19.7.2014 at 09:15 a.m.
5. The investigation of the case was conducted by C.O. Narendra Dev, who recorded the statements of witnesses and made a site plan (Ext. K-6) after inspection of the house of the accused persons. The inquest report Ext. K-2 was prepared on 19.7.2014 by Tehsildar Ram Jeevan Verma and necessary papers for post-mortem were also prepared. The post-mortem of the deceased was performed by Dr. R.P. Singh on 19.7.2014 and autopsy report Ext. K-5 was prepared by him, who found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of deceased as mentioned below :
2. Superficial to deep burn (old) on both asens (Anteriorly and posteriorly). Surface of skin is covered with granulatial tissues.
3. Superficial to deep burn (old) on back of chest where skin surface is covered with granulated tissues.
It was opined that the cause of death was septicemic shock as a result of old burn.
6. After investigation three charge-sheets Ext. K-7, Ext. K-8 and Ext. K-9 was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Meanwhile the dying declaration (Ext. K-10) of Smt. Hema aforesaid was recorded by Sri P.S. Rana, Additional City Magistrate on 4.5.2014 at Maraj Hospital, Aligarh.
7. The accused persons were appeared before the Court and their cases being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court were committed to the Court of Sessions.
8. Accused Arjun Singh and Anguri Devi were charged under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 302/34 IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act, accused Bachchoo and Smt. Anjali were charged under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 302/34 IPC as alternative charge and Section ¾ D.P. Act and charges under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 302/34 IPC as alternative charge and Section 4 D.P.
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana
B.N. Kavatakar and another v. State of Karnataka
Devendra Singh and others v. State of Uttarakhand
G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka
Kailash v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P.
Maya Devi and another v. State of Haryana
Paniben v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474: 1992
Ramwati Devi v. State of Bihar
State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav] (1985) 1 SCC 552; 1985 ACC (Cri) 127]
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on dying declaration as a sole basis for conviction under Section 302/34 of IPC, the interpretation of Section 498A of IPC, and the ap....
The dying declaration was the sole basis for conviction, and the distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code was cr....
The dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is true, reliable, and recorded in accordance with law. The cause of death due to septicaemia led to the classification of the offence....
The reliability of dying declaration, the role of hostile witnesses, and the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of death due to septicemia.
It is quite clear that if dying declaration dying declaration is absolutely credible and nothing is brought on record that deceased was in such a condition, he or she could not have made a dying decl....
Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if proven credible, establishing link between dowry demands and resulting harassment leading to the victim's death.
Dying declarations must be consistent for legal value; inconsistent declarations undermine grounds for conviction under dowry death charges.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.