Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Kharak Singh - Revisionist
Versus
Krishan Pal and Others – Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. -1484 of 1998
Decided On : 07-12-2023
304B - Dowry Death - Indian Penal Code, 1872, Section 304B, Section 498A, Section 3/4 of the DP Act - The court discussed the presumption against the accused under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with regard to the offence committed under Section 304B IPC. The prosecution proved the charges under Sections 304B and 498A IPC by fulfilling all the ingredients of dowry death. The deceased was killed by administering poison, and the FSL report corroborated the same. The court highlighted key legal provisions, their interpretations, and how they influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was married to Krishan Pal, and her family alleged that she was harassed for dowry. The deceased was found dead, and the prosecution alleged that she was killed by administering poison. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court misread the evidence and gave an incorrect finding. It was proved beyond reasonable doubt that an unnatural death had occurred within two years of marriage. The court emphasized the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act and the burden upon the defense to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand for dowry, the circumstances of the deceased's death, and the burden of proof on the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act could not be removed by the defense, and there was a burden upon the defense to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The failure of the accused to offer any explanation became a strong militating circumstance against them.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the judgment and order of acquittal were set aside. The trial court was directed to hear both parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within three months.
JUDGMENT :
1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.06.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Meerut under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the DP Act.
2. The revisionist informant has taken ground that the judgment and order passed by the lower court is wholly illegal. The trial court has completely misread and mis-appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of all the accused persons. The prosecution has proved this case beyond all reasonable doubts even then the trial court has acquitted the accused from all the charges on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. There is no delay in lodging the FIR and if there is any delay, the same has been explained by the complainant even though the trial court has acquitted all the accused persons holding that the FIR is an anti-timed document. The trial court has held without any material evidence that the FIR in question has been subsequently manipulated and changed. The finding given by the trial court in this respect is wholly illegal, perverse and is liable to be set aside.
3. It is well settled law that there is a presumption against the accused under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with regard to the offence committed under Section 304B IPC. In the present case, even though the accused persons have failed to revert the presumption drawn against them under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the trial court without any basis or material has recorded the finding of acquittal, which is wholly illegal and is liable to be set aside. The prosecution has completely proved the charges under Sections 304B and 498A IPC by fulfilling all the ingredients of dowry death, even though the trial court has illegally recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of the accused persons.
4. The prosecution has proved beyond all the reasonable doubts that the deceased was killed by administering poison and the FSL report also corroborates the same but the trial court ignored this important fact in its judgment. Hence, this revision be allowed and the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.06.1998 passed by the ASJ-IV, Meerut be set aside and a suitable order be passed.
5. In brief, facts of the case are that Kharak Singh lodged an FIR Ex.Ka-1 at Police Station Baleni, District Meerut on 01.03.1994 at 09:30 p.m. with the allegations that his daughter Anita was married to Krishan Pal in the year of 1992. At the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given but Krishan Pal and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry, hence they started harassing Anita for bringing more dowry. His son Pawan Kumar had gone to meet Anita at her in-laws' house two months prior to the festival of Sankranti where all the accused persons made a demand of scooter or Rs.21,000/-cash. Anita also repeated this version to his brother that accused persons are demanding the same. Thereafter the informant's another son Rajendra went to her in-laws' house on 14.01.1994. At that time also all the four accused persons repeated the same demand. After coming back Rajendra told that Anita is being harassed by the accused persons in respect of dowry. The informant and other villagers went to village Dolcha and they explained and pacified the matter regarding demand of dowry saying that the informant has already provided sufficient dowry as per his capacity. At that time the accused persons promised not to harass any more on account of dowry but they continued to repeat their demand. On 01.03.1994 Basanta son of informant's maternal uncle resident of Balena came to home at 06:00 p.m. and told that he had gone to village Dolcha in a marriage ceremony and informed that Anita has been murdered. Hearing this news the complainant and other villagers reached their and found Anita to be dead. The informa
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, the evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused ....
Conviction upheld - Dowry death - there was persistent demand of dowry made by accused from the victim who was used to subjected to cruelty and harassment for such demand and ultimately she had ended....
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand to establish charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The prosecution must establish all ingredients of Section 304B IPC, including demand for dowry soon before death, to invoke presumption of guilt under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
The prosecution established that the accused subjected the deceased to continuous harassment for dowry, leading to her suicide within seven years of marriage, warranting conviction under Section 304-....
The prosecution must prove demand for dowry and cruelty to establish a dowry death under Section 304B IPC, leading to a presumption of guilt against the accused.
Dowry death conviction under IPC Section 304B requires proof of cruelty/harassment for dowry demand soon before death to attract Evidence Act Section 113B presumption; mere presence at scene insuffic....
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
