Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 29
2012 (1) N.C.C. 785
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.C. Dhyani
Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2009
KAILASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
Decided on : 10.01.2012
For the Appellant : Mr. S.P.S. Panwar, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. H.C. Pathak, Adv.
For the State :Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. Govt. Advocate
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 304-B — Offence punishable under — Basic elements of (a) burning; (b) bodily injury; (c) death of a woman otherwise than under normal circumstances; (d) within seven years of her marriage; (e) soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment; (f) by her husband or any relative of her husband & (g) for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry — In the present case, the death of lady was not in natural circumstances — It is an admitted fact that she died within 7 yrs of marriage — Therefore, the basic elements of offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC fulfilled.
(Para 18)
(B) Dowry death — Victim died within 1½ yrs after marriage — Prosecution alleged that the appellant had demanded Rs. 50,000/- in dowry — Also, in the instant case the harassment to the lady persisted until before her death — And the prosecution had been able to show that harassment on account of non-fulfilment of dowry persisted until before her death — It is not a case in which something intervening happened to mitigate the circumstances — Demand of dowry subsisted till her death — If one is pushed to death, it must be on account of continuous mental pressure on her — It was a case of non-fulfilment of promised dowry — There is no presumption that the same will subside with the passage of time — Also, where the post mortem report had not indicated that it was a natural death — No reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by learned trial court — A Case of 'dowry death' proved against the husband-appellant — Appeal dismissed.
(Paras 26, 32, 34, 36, 37)
¼v½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 304-B & ds vUrxZr vijk/k & ds vk/kkj (a) tyuk (b) 'kjhj ij pksV (c) fdlh efgyk dh vlkekU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ekSr (d) 7 o"kks± ds vUnj (e) tcfd e`R;q ls Bhd igys mlds lkFk Øwjrk vkSj mRihM+u (f) ifr ;k ifr ds fj'rsnkjksa }kjk (g) tks fd ngst ds fy, ;k mlds lEcU/k esa gks & izLrqr okn esa efgyk dh e`R;q vlkekU; & vkSj mldh e`R;q 'kknh ds 7 o"kks± ds Hkhrj gqbZ & vUrxZr /kkjk 304-B, IPC lHkh ekSfyd rRo iw.kZA ¼izLrj 18½
¼c½ ngst gR;k & ihfM+rk dh e`R;q fookg ds 1½ o"kZ esa gqbZ & vfHk;kstu ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDr us #- 50]000@& dh ek¡x ngst esa dh Fkh & vkSj izLrqr okn esa ihfM+rk dk mRihM+u e`R;q ls Bhd igys rd fd;k x;k Fkk tks fd vfHk;kstu us Hkh fl) fd;k Fkk & bl okn esa rF;ksa ds 'keu ds fy, dksbZ n[ky ugha & ngst dh ek¡x ihfM+rk dh e`R;q rd yxkrkj cuh gqbZ Fkh & vxj fdlh dks e`R;q dh rjQ /kdsyk x;k gksxk rks og yxkrkj gksus okyk ekufld mRihM+u gh gksxk & ;g ,d ngst dk ekeyk gS & vkSj ;g le; ds lkFk [kRe ugha gks ldrk & iksLVekVZe esa Hkh vlkekU; e`R;q dks n'kkZ;k x;k gS & ekuuh; ijh{k.k vnkyr ds fu"d"kZ esa dkbZ n[ky ugha & vihykFkhZ ifr ds f[kykQ ngst gR;k dk okn fl) & vihy fujLrA
¼izLrj 26] 32] 34] 36] 37½
Per: U.C. Dhyani, J
In the instant case, criminal law was set into motion by one Redwa Singh son of Kishan Singh resident of village Datiyana, P.S. Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. Informant Redwa Singh was the unfortunate father of deceased. He lodged an FIR on 23.12.1997 at 6:10 pm in P.S. Jhabrera district Haridwar which was registered as crime no. 131 of 1997 under section 304 B IPC. The incident took place on 17.12.1997.
2. Five accused viz. Kailash, Smt. Bala, Baljor, Sompal and Mithilesh were named in FIR. After investigation of the case, Police submitted charge sheet against all of them for the offence punishable under section 304B IPC. When the trial commenced, charges were framed against all the accused persons for the said offence. Prosecution witnesses were examined before the trial court. Statements of the accused persons were taken under section 313 Cr.P.C. They said that they were falsely implicated in the case. One witness viz. DW 1 Veeram Singh, Advocate was produced in defence. Trial court exonerated accused persons Baljor, Sompal, Smt. Bala and Smt. Mithilesh of the charges framed against them.
3. Accused appellant Kailash (husband) was convicted of the offence punishable under section 304 B IPC. He was awarded imprisonment for life. Aggrieved against the order-dated 22.08.2009 of the trial court, accused appellant Kailash preferred this criminal appeal.
4. According to the complainant Redwa Singh, his daughter was married to Kailash on 16.04.1996 according to Hindu customs and rituals. The husband and other members of her matrimonial home were not satisfied with dowry. They ridiculed informant’s daughter for bringing lesser dowry and demanded Rs. 50,000/- in cash. When daughter of informant came to her parental home, she disclosed everything to them. She said that her husband, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law (jeth) and sister-in-law (jethani) harass her on account of bringing lesser dowry. They beat her and do not provide adequate and proper food to her. She complained to them that her in-laws were insisting for bringing Rs. 50,000/-in cash. The informant went to Gangadaspur along with his cousins to persuade in-laws of her daughter. They (in-laws) said that they had given lesser dowry. Informant came back to his residence. About a month ago (from the date of lodgement of FIR), appellant husband took his wife to her matrimonial home but the intensity of harassment and cruelty meted out to her daughter continued to remain unabated. A report to this effect was sent to SP, Haridwar (by informant). In the morning of 17.12.1997, the informant was intimated by a person that informant’s daughter was critical. Informant went to his daughter’s matrimonial home along with his Uncle Isam Singh only to find that his daughter was dead. There were marks (of injury) on her neck and hand. Complexion of her face was changed. She was sacrificed on the altar of dowry. Informant Redwa Singh could not bear the shock of death of his daughter and therefore could not lodge FIR promptly.
5. In his examination-in-chief, PW 1 Redwa Singh supported prosecution version. He corroborated the contents enumerated in FIR. There appears to be no need to reproduce what the witness (informant) said in his examination-in-chief, for the same will amount to reproducing what was said in FIR. PW 1 Redwa Singh proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1).
6. Informant was passing through great mental stress and mental trauma. His mental condition and the shock which he might have undergone may be understood easily. A normal person like him will not be able to fathom it. This was the reason why he did not lodge complaint promptly.
7. Last rites of deceased were not performed in presence of the father (of the deceased). No inquest was conducted in his presence, for he was under great mental shock. Post mortem on the dead body of victim was conducted on 18.12.1997 at 1:10 pm. In the cross-examination PW 1 Redwa Singh denied that inquest
