Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, RENU AGARWAL, JJ.
Sushila @ Annapurna and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1244 of 2012
Decided On : 14-02-2023
Dowry - Criminal Appeal - Sections 498-A, 304B, I.P.C. & Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to dowry, including the demand of dowry, the dying declaration, and the use of kerosene oil to set ablaze the victim. The judgment focused on the absence of proof of dowry demand for the conviction under Section 498-A I.P.C. and upheld the conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The daughter of the informant was married to the accused-appellant. She was allegedly being tortured for dowry and was ultimately set ablaze, leading to her death. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. but acquitted them under Section 304-B I.P.C. & Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there was evidence of the victim being set ablaze, there was no proof of dowry demand, leading to the acquittal under Section 498-A I.P.C. The conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. was upheld based on the dying declaration and evidence of the use of kerosene oil.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the demand of dowry, the reliability of the dying declaration, and the use of kerosene oil in setting ablaze the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving dowry demand for conviction under Section 498-A I.P.C. and scrutinized the dying declaration and medical evidence to establish the use of kerosene oil in the crime.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, acquitting the appellants under Section 498-A I.P.C. and confirming their conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. The appellants were ordered to serve the sentence.
JUDGMENT :
RENU AGARWAL, J.
1. The Present Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the convicts/appellants against the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2012 passed by Sri Faridul Haq, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, District Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2011 (State vs. Satish Pandey and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 858 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 304B, I.P.C. & Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Poorakalandar, District Faizabad whereby convicting and sentencing all the appellants to undergo two years simple imprisonment under Section 498-A I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each appellants and in default of payment of fine two months more simple imprisonment. Life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and fine of Rs.5,000/- on each appellants and in default of payment of fine six months more simple imprisonment. All the sentences will run simultaneously.
2. Wrapping the facts of the case in brief, the marriage of the daughter of informant was solemnized with accused-appellant Satish Pandey S/o Shri Laxmi Chand Pandey on 29.04.2007. At the time of marriage, one motorcycle and Rs.70,000/- cash were demanded as additional dowry by the accused-appellants but the ceremonies of marriage of his daughter completed on the intervention of relatives. Later on same demand was made at the time of Gauna and the same was performed on 25.11.2009 on the intervention of relatives. When his daughter came for the first time after her marriage, she informed that she was being beaten by her in-laws for the demand of dowry. She went by her in-laws again and again to her matrimonial home and sent back. On 06.09.2010, he was informed that his daughter was admitted in District Hospital, Faizabad and when he reached there he saw that his daughter was wholly burnt out and no one was present there to attend her in the hospital from the side of her husband. On the enquiry, his daughter told that her husband Satish Pandey, sister-in-law (bhabhi) Neha Pandey, sister-in-law (nanad) Suman, brother-in-law (devar) Awadhesh, father-in-law Laxmi Chand Pandey and mother-in-law Sushila @ Annapurna by pouring kerosene oil has set her ablaze. The dying declaration of his daughter was recorded the day before i.e. on 07.09.2010 at about 02:30 p.m.
3. On the basis of written report F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-1 was registered, chik report as Ext. Ka-14 was prepared and the same was endorsed in G.D. No. 18 on the same day. Inquest upon the corpse of the deceased was conducted on 06.09.2010 by Sub-divisional Magistrate, who prepared inquest report as Ext. Ka-3 and other relevant papers i.e. photo nash, challan nash, letter to C.M.O., letter to R.I. were also prepared and sent the corpse of the deceased for autopsy. Autopsy was conducted on the same day at about 9:45 p.m. by Dr. R.P. Rai.
4. The Investigating Officer visited the site, recorded the statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr.P.C. prepared site plan and recovered semi-burnt footwear (chappal), sack of jute, shawl, curtain, jhalar, container of kerosene oil and match box from the place of occurrence and prepared recovery memo thereof and after completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellants namely; Sushila @ Annapurna, Neha Pandey, Satish Pandey and Laxmi Chandra Pandey, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, I.P.C. & Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Poorakalandar, District Faizabad.
5. Accused-appellants were summoned in the Court and charges were framed against them, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Poorakalandar, District Faizabad.
Accused-appellants abjured from the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. Learned trial court, later on by order dated 23.02.2012 framed additional charges against them, under Section 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. as an alternate case. Accused-appellants abjured from the said charges also and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove dowry demand for conviction under Section 498-A I.P.C. and the scrutiny of the dying declaration and medical evidence f....
Conviction under Section 498-A requires clear evidence of cruelty related to dowry demands; a dying declaration indicating accidental death denies such evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on dying declaration and other evidence to establish guilt under Section 304-B of the IPC in cases of dowry demand cruelty.
The Dying Declaration must be credible and corroborated; in this case, it was deemed unreliable due to contradictions and lack of supporting evidence.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of dowry death, including the timing of the marriage and the link between dowry demands and the death, as well as the decease....
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.
The court emphasized the necessity of corroborating dying declarations and established that dowry-related cruelty leading to death constitutes an offence under Section 304B IPC.
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
