Back
2011 Supreme(UK) 657
2012 (1) N.C.C. 307
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.C.Dhyani
Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2002
SMT. RAHASAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL – Opposite Party
Decided on : 29.12.2011
For the Appellant :Mr. K.S. Rawal, Holding Brief of Mr. Sidhartha Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Bhatt, Government Advocate
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 304-B — Dowry Death — Merely by asking the deceased as to what had she brought from her home — And by saying that she had come from a family of paupers — Demand of dowry and the ingredients of Sec. 303-B, IPC, not proved — And the offence u/s 304-B of Penal Code cannot be made out. (Paras 15 and 19)
(B) Dowry Death — As per prosecution, the accused (mother-in-law of the deceased) was 70 years old at time of incident — While the victim was a young lady on the date of incident — According to her dying declaration no other member of the family was present when her mother-in-law set her on fire — It is a basic human instinct that no one gives up easily when it comes to taking away one's life and victim must have offered resistance — She must have tried to repel the move of mother-in-law and in natural course, should have succeeded in protecting herself — But she could not do it and succumbed to her mother-in-law's moves — It appears that (a) either more than one person were there or (b) she herself poured kerosene on her, and lighted the match in order to commit suicide — Prosecution story not proved beyond reasonable doubt — Appeal accordingly allowed. (Para 20)
¼v½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 304B & ngst gR;k & e`rdk ls dsoy ek= bruk iwN ysus ls fd og vius ?kj ls D;k&Dk ykbZ Fkh vkSj ,slk dgus ls fd og Hkw[ks uaxs ifjokj ls vkbZ Fkh] ls ngst dh ekax vkSj /kkjk 303B IPC esa fufgr rRo fl) ugha gksrs vkSj /kkjk 304B IPC dk vijk/k Hkh ugha cu ldrkA
¼izLrj 15 vkSj 19½
¼c½ ngst gR;k & vfHk;kstu ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDr ¼e`rdk dh lkl½ ?kVuk ds le; 70 o"kks± dh vk;q dh Fkh tcfd ?kVuk ds le; ihfM+rk ,d toku efgyk Fkh & mldh e`R;q le; ds c;ku ds vuqlkj ifjokj dk dksbZ vU; lnL; mifLFkr ugha Fkk tc mldh lkl us mls vkx yxkbZ Fkh & ;g ekuo dh ewy izo`fÙk gS fd tc fd tku tkus dh ukScr vkrh rks dksbZ Hkh O;fDr bls vklkuh ls ugha tkus nsrk vkSj ihfM+r }kjk fojks/k vo'; izdV fd;k tkrk gS & mls viuh lkl ds okj dks okfil djus dk iz;kl djuk pkfg, Fkk vkSj og LokHkkfod :i ls vius dks cpkus esa lQy gks ldrh Fkh & ijUrq mlus ;g ugha fd;k vkSj viuh lkl ds okj ds o'khHkwr gks xbZ & ,slk yxrk gS ;k rks (a) ,d ls vf/kd O;fDr ogk¡ Fks ;k (b) mlus vius vki feV~Vh rsy Mkyk Fkk vkSj vkRegR;k djus gsrq ekfpl yxkbZ Fkh & vfHk;kstu dh dgkuh lansg ls ijs fl) ugha gks ldh & rnuqlkj vihy Lohdkj dh xbZA ¼izLrj 20½
[Per: Hon'ble U.C. Dhyani, J]
In the instant case, the criminal law was set into motion by one Bashir Khan s/o Nizam Ali r/o Ward No.10, Kichha who had lodged a complaint with the Inspector In-charge Kotwali, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar on 30.06.2000 stating that his daughter Smt. Bhuri was married to Ahmad Hasan s/o Shaukat r/o Ward No.17 Kichha some 09 months ago. Her husband Ahmad Hasan and her mother-in-law Rahasan w/o Shaukat demanded dowry and also used to commit marpeet with her. Smt. Bhuri used to complain about the same but the father persuaded his daughter to reconcile. On 30.06.2000 at around 4:00 p.m. her mother-in-law blamed her for having illicit relations with another man. The mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. On her hue and cry the neighbours tried to come to her rescue and brought her to the Government Hospital Kichha. She was referred to Bareilly (higher centre). But she breathed her last on way to Bareilly. Her dead body was lying at Government Hospital, Kichha.
2. On the basis of this complaint (Ext. Ka-1) chik FIR (Ext. Ka-9) was prepared and crime no. 131/2000 was registered against the accused Ahmad Hasan and Rahasan in respect of offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. Investigation of the case was taken up by Ms. Vimla Gunjiyal, Circle Officer. She inspected the spot, prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-12), took the statements of the witnesses and submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-10) against the accused persons. The copies of the prosecution documents were provided to the accused persons and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, who conducted the trial.
3. Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B IPC, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused Rahasan, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. No reference of the charges against Ahmad Hasan, husband of the victim, is being made here as the learned trial court has exonerated him of the charges levelled against him. Prosecution examined PW1 Shabbir, PW2 Laddan, P.W.3 Girish Kumar, Tehsildar, P.W.4 Dr. V.D. Joshi, and P.W.5 Dr. M.D. Pande. The genuineness of the documents on record was admitted by learned counsel for the accused (now appellant) before the learned trial court. In defence, D.W.1 Puran Lal and D.W.2 Asghar Ali were examined.
4. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused Rahasan under Section 313 Cr. PC., in reply to which she alleged that the evidence adduced against her is false. She said that while she was away from her residence, her daughter-in-law (Smt. Bhuri) received burns while cooking food.
5. Learned trial court found the accused Rahasan guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B IPC, 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted her accordingly. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar whereby accused/appellant Smt. Rahasan has been convicted under Section 304-B IPC, section 498A IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in sessions trial no. 299/2000 and has been sentenced to 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment, one year's RI and three months' RI for these offences respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Co-accused Ahmad Hasan (husband) was however, acquitted of the charges framed against him.
6. P.W.1 Shabbir is the father of the deceased Bhuri. He has stated that his daughter Bhuri was married to accused Ahmad Hasan 2 years ago. Accused Ahmad Hasan and Rahasan never demanded dowry. His daughter died of burns. He was not aware who had set her on fire. He got a complaint written by one Iqbal Ahmad. He has acknowledged that it was written in the complaint that so and so poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire, but he said that this sentence was not spoken (to Iqbal Ahmad). This sentence might have been got written at the instance of other persons. He is illiterate
