Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Vijay Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1496 of 2022
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Dowry Death - Criminal Appeal - Section 304-B IPC, Section 498-A IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 113B of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the ingredients of the offence under section 304B of IPC and the presumption as to dowry death under Section 113B. The court also highlighted the burden of proof in case of dowry deaths and the duty of the accused to offer explanation. The court referred to legal principles established in various cases to interpret the provisions and emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of a woman under unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home, with allegations of cruelty and harassment due to dowry demands. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section-304-B I.P.C., Section-498-A I.P.C., and Section-4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case that the deceased died due to cruelty and harassment by the appellant. The court also considered the appellant's plea for reduction of sentence due to his prolonged incarceration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prosecution's failure to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof in case of dowry deaths, and the appellant's plea for reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof in case of dowry deaths, and the duty of the accused to offer explanation. The court also considered the appellant's prolonged incarceration as a factor in reducing the sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed on the point of conviction and partly allowed on the point of sentence. The sentence under Section 304-B IPC was reduced to 7 years with all remissions, while the sentences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act remained unaltered. All sentences were to run concurrently.
JUDGMENT :
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Balrampur in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 659 of 2017 relating to Police Station-Mahrajganj Tarai, District-Balrampur, whereby convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences under Section-304-B I.P.C. for ten years rigorous imprisonment; under Section-498-A I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months additional imprisonment; under Section-4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, two months additional imprisonment.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Purushottam lodged the FIR alleging therein that he is a resident of Village-Rajpur Mashmule Sirahia, Police Station-Lalia, District-Balrampur and his daughter Madhuri alias Manorani alias Maniya got married with Vijay (appellant) three years before lodging of the FIR. On 25.03.2017 in the morning, the complainant received information that his daughter had died last night and then, he reached the matrimonial home of the deceased and saw that there were many injury marks on the back of her daughter and a cut mark on the sole of her foot, so it appears that his daughter was murdered because the husband of the his daughter repeatedly demanded gold chain and ring. On the basis of written report given by the complainant, on 25.03.2017 at 10.30 am, the FIR was lodged against the appellant Vijay Kumar Verma under Sections 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as Case Crime No. 659/2017.
3. During course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared the site plan as Ex-ka-6. He also recorded the statement of other required witnesses.
4. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the appellant to the magistrate court who took cognizance and the case was committed to the court of sessions where the case was registered as S.T. No. 60/2017 and thereafter, this case was transferred to the court of Sessions Judge, Balrampur for trial. Thereafter, the charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. In addition to these charges, an alternate charge for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed by the trial court. The charges were read over to the appellant but he denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined following witnesses:
(ii) PW-2 Rajrani, who is the mother of the deceased and she fully supported the prosecution version.
(iii) PW-3 Smt. Sunita, who is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the deceased and she also supported the prosecution version.
(iv) PW-4 Dr. Kamlesh Singh, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased on 26.3.2017 and proved its report as Ex-ka-3. He stated that the dead body was foul smelling and the skin was peeling off. He found following injuries on the body of the deceased:
Ante mortem injury:
(1) Ligature mark 3.5 cm x 01 cm around the neck, 04 cm below the right ear, 05 cm below the chin and 04 cm below the left ear.
Post mortem injury:
(1) Lacerated wound measuring 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the left heel.
(2) Lacerated wound 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm on the little finger of the left foot.
The Doctor opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem injury.
(v) PW-5, Juggilal, who is the brother of the deceased and he also supported the prosecution version.
(vi) PW-6 Constable Pradeep Chaturvedi,
The judgment established the need for a proximate and live link between dowry harassment and the woman's death, and emphasized the statutory presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evid....
The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of Sec. 304-B, and once proved, the presumption under Sec. 113-B comes into play. The accused can then attempt to displace the deemed c....
(1) Dowry death – “Soon before” cannot be interpreted to mean “immediately before”, rather prosecution has to show that there existed a “proximate and live link” between cruelty and consequential dea....
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 court established that dowry death under Section 304(B) IPC requires proof of harassment related to dowry demands, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
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
