Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Barin Ghosh & U.C. Dhyani, JJ.
Govind Singh & three others .………….Appellants
versus
State of Uttaranchal ...…………. Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 2003
Decided On : July 24, 2012.
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. G.S. Negi (Amicus Curiae) Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Amit Bhatt, Dy. Advocate General assisted by Mr. V.P. Bahuguna, Brief Holder for the State.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of IPC related to dowry death, cruelty, and harassment, and the court's reliance on evidence such as letters and oral testimony to establish the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Dowry Death - Criminal Law - IPC 304-B, 498-A, 201, 386, 120-B, Dowry Prohibition Act - The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused for offenses punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court found that the victim died an unnatural death due to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws for not bringing a sum of Rs. 50,000 as dowry. The court also highlighted the evidence of letters written by the victim to her brother, which depicted her distress and the demand for dowry, supporting the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, Manju Devi, was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws for not bringing a demanded dowry amount. She expressed her distress in letters to her brother, and the court found that she died an unnatural death due to the cruelty and harassment. The delay in lodging the complaint was explained by the informant, and the court found the explanation satisfactory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim died an unnatural death due to cruelty and harassment for dowry, as evidenced by the letters written by the victim and the oral testimony of witnesses. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused for offenses punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand for dowry, cruelty, and harassment leading to the victim's unnatural death, the delay in lodging the complaint, and the explanation provided for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of cruelty and harassment for dowry, as depicted in the victim's letters and oral testimony, supported the prosecution's case. The court also found the explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint satisfactory, considering the mental state of the victim's family.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the accused for offenses punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC were affirmed. The accused were directed to surrender before the court to serve out the sentence awarded to them.
Per: U.C. Dhyani, J.
In the present criminal appeal, criminal law was set into motion at the instance of informant Bhagat Singh Aswal, brother of the deceased. In his complaint (Ext. Ka-5) submitted to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotdwar on 26.08.1995, the informant stated that he was working as Rifleman in the Indian Army and was a resident of village Jamal (Dabralsuin). It was also stated that his sister was married to Yogambar Singh s/o Govind Singh, resident of village Teel (Bhawansi), Post Bhawansi, Patti Ajmer (Valla) in the month of April 1993 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It was alleged that one year after her marriage, the sister of the informant was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and ultimately his sister was told to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents and brother. The informant in his complaint stated that being a soldier he could not afford to fulfill such a huge demand and as a result, his sister was done away with on 14.07.1995. His father was forced to put his signatures on some papers under compulsion. Dead body of his sister was cremated on 15.07.1995 by 17 persons without obtaining medical report. The delay in lodging the complaint was also explained by the informant saying that he received the news one month later during his posting at border area and he could reach the village on 20th August only to know from his parents that his sister was done away with for demand of dowry.
2. On the basis of said complaint the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the Naib Tehsildar and Patwari, Ajmer Valla to lodge an FIR on 26.08.1995 and start investigation of the case. Subsequently an FIR was filed. On the basis of said FIR, chick FIR (Ext. Ka-7) was lodged on 03.09.1995 at 11:00 P.M. and a Case Crime No. 01 of 1995 was registered against accused Govind Singh, wife of Govind Singh, Yogambar Singh, Meharban Singh and 17 others in respect of offences punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A and 201 of IPC. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-13) against the accused persons in respect of offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201, 386, 120-B of IPC and the other punishable under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Trial began before learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Charges against accused Govind Singh, Sushila Devi, Yogambar Singh, Meharban Singh and 17 others were framed relating to offences punishable under Sections 498-A / 34, 304-B / 34 and 201 / 149 of IPC to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On this, prosecution examined P.W.1 Bhagat Singh Aswal, P.W.2 Mahipal Singh, P.W.3 Maal Singh and P.W.4 Anand Prakash Balodi. All the oral and documentary evidence was put to accused persons. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they said that the evidence against them was false and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Accused Govind Singh in his statement pleaded that the deceased died of cholera. In defence D.W.1. Dr. Devi Prasad Dabral was produced.
4. After considering the evidence on record, trial court held the accused / appellants Govind Singh, Sushila Devi, Yogambar Singh and Meharban Singh guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC. Convict Govind Singh was sentenced to imprisonment for life in respect of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years in respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. It was directed that in default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo one year’s imprisonment. Convicts Sushila Devi, Yogambar Singh and Meharban Singh were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years in respect of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years in respect of offence pu
