SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1657

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Ram Ji And Another - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 6710 Of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No. 5490 of 2011
Decided On : 26-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : V.P. Srivastava, Sr. Adv., Renu Singh, Sniv Nath Singh.

IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution failed to prove essential elements of dowry death, leading to acquittal of most accused, while confirming conviction of mother-in-law under Section 498-A IPC.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304-B, 498-A - Dowry death - Conviction of appellants under Section 304-B IPC set aside due to lack of evidence proving essential ingredients of 'soon before' death and involvement of relatives in dowry demand - Conviction under Section 498-A IPC confirmed for mother-in-law. (Paras 104, 105, 106)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B - Presumption of dowry death - No presumption arises as prosecution failed to establish essential ingredients of cruelty and harassment soon before death. (Paras 84, 90)

Facts of the case:

The deceased was married on 11.11.2003 and died within seven years under suspicious circumstances. Allegations of dowry demand and cruelty were made against the in-laws, but evidence was inconsistent. (Paras 1-3, 26-30)

Findings of Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused soon before her death, leading to the acquittal of most appellants. (Paras 104-106)

Issues: The main issues were whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty and whether the death occurred under normal circumstances. (Paras 33-34, 69-74)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution did not establish a clear link between the alleged dowry harassment and the death of the deceased, leading to the conclusion that the relatives were falsely implicated. (Paras 104-106)

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction of some appellants set aside, while conviction of mother-in-law under Section 498-A IPC confirmed.

JUDGMENT :

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Since these appeals have been filed by the accused appellants against the same judgement and order, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 9.9.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Allahabad in S.T. No. 618 of 2006 arising out of Crime No. 193 of 2003 under Section 304-B/34, 498-A/34 I.P.C. and 4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Kydganj, Allahabad, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 304-B/34 I.P.C. for 10 years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 498-A/ 34 I.P.C. for 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-each with default clause and under Section 4 D.P. Act for 1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-each with default clause and all the sentences were to run concurrently, the present criminal appeals have been preferred by convict-appellants 1. Ram Ji, 2. Smt. Sumari Devi, 3. Mahendra Kumar, 4. Dwarika Prasad, 5. Ram Prasad, 6. Smt. Manju, 7. Smt. Manisha, 8. Smt. Urmila and 9. Smt. Kusum.

3. Out of nine convict appellants, convict Ram Ji and Dwarika Prasad have died and reports regarding their death are available on record. Hence, the appeals qua convict appellants Ram Ji and Dwarika Prasad stand abated.

4. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that Urmila, the daughter of the informant Chote Lal was married with Ram Ji s/o Shyam Sundar on 11.11.2003 and when she came to her matrimonial house after marriage a demand for one scooter and Rs.50,000/-cash was made by her in-laws as an additional dowry and she was also threatened for dire consequences in case the demand made by the in-laws was not satisfied. She came back to her parental house and when on 27.11.2003 she again went to her matrimonial house she was tortured and burnt by pouring hot mustered oil, which resulted into the burning of her right hand and leg; On her telephone call, Ghanshyam, the son of the informant and his son-in-law Chaman Kumar went to the house of her in-laws on 3.12.2003 and the deceased was taken to her parental house and when they were taking her to the hospital on 4.12.2003, she died on way at 7 am.

5. On the written report of informant FIR was lodged on 4.12.2003 at 10.00 am against 9 named accused persons and investigation started.

6. Inquest proceedings were performed by Tehsildar Bara, Brajendra Singh on 4.12.2003 and subsequently her dead body was examined by Dr. A.K. Mehrotra on 6.12.2003, who prepared the autopsy report and found several ante-mortem injuries over the body of the deceased and the cause of death was found coma as a result of ante-mortem head injury.

7. The matter was investigated initially by Shri Prakash Swaroop Pandey, Dy. S.P. EOW, who during course of investigation inspected the 3 place of occurrence and prepared site plan, made arrest of accused persons and also proceeded to interrogate the witnesses of this case and subsequently the investigation was transferred to Shri Rajesh Kumar, C.O. City, Firozabad, who completed the rest formalities of the investigation and after collecting sufficient evidence submitted charge sheet to the Court.

8. The offence being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Magistrate where charges under Section 498-A/34, 304-B/34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act were framed against all the charge sheeted nine accused persons. They denied all the charges and claimed for trial.

9. To bring home the charges against the accused-appellants the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence and in all as many as 10 prosecution witnesses were examined. P.W.1 Chote Lal, informant/ father of the deceased, P.W.2 Ghanshyam Kumar, brother of the deceased, P.W.3 Km. Shabnam, sister of the deceased and formal witnesses P.W.4 Dr. Veerendra Singh, medical officer, P.W.5 Crt. Mhr. Rampati Singh, P.W.6 Dr. R.D. Ram, P.W.7 Rajesh Kumar, C.O. City, second I.O, P.W.8 Dy.

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top