Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 669
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Anoop Singh and another - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttaranchal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1826 of 2001
Decided On : August 30, 2013
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, present for the appellants
Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Government Advocate, assisted by Meena Bohara, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the accused in cases of 'dowry death' and the necessity of proving 'cruelty' under Section 498-A IPC. The judgment also emphasizes the offence of surreptitious cremation under Section 201 IPC.
Headnote:
Dowry Death - Criminal Law - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 498A, 304B, 201, and IPC Sections 34, 3/4 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 304B, 201, and 498-A of the IPC, as well as the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and their interpretations in the context of the case. The court emphasized the importance of proving 'dowry death' and 'cruelty' under the relevant sections and highlighted the burden of proof on the accused to explain the circumstances of the victim's death and the necessity of informing the authorities in case of an unnatural death.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint of dowry death and related offences against the accused persons, Anoop Singh and Dheeraj Singh, for the death of Sushma, who was married to Anoop Singh. The prosecution presented evidence of dowry demands and harassment suffered by the victim, leading to her death. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were exonerated of the charge of 'dowry death' under Section 304B IPC due to lack of evidence. However, they were convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC for subjecting the victim to cruelty, and under Section 201 IPC for surreptitiously cremating the victim's body without informing the authorities.
Issues: The key issues included proving 'dowry death' and 'cruelty' under the relevant sections, establishing the circumstances of the victim's death, and determining the accused's responsibility for informing the authorities about the unnatural death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof was on the accused to explain the victim's death and that the surreptitious cremation without informing the authorities constituted an offence under Section 201 IPC. The court also emphasized the necessity of proving 'cruelty' under Section 498-A IPC.
Final Decision: The accused were exonerated of the charge of 'dowry death' under Section 304B IPC, but convicted for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 201 IPC. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
PW1 Suresh Singh wrote a complaint to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal on 29.04.1999 against Anoop Singh, Dheeraj Singh and Smt Sushma Devi, which was registered on the self same day at 4:00 P.M., as case crime no. 1/99 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, namely, Anoop Singh and Dheeraj Singh. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the prosecution opened it’s case, charges for the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 I.P.C., Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 201 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. PW1 Suresh Singh, PW2 Subhash Chandra Singh, PW3 Smt. Kusum Devi, PW4 Sultan Singh, PW5 Jogendra Singh and PW6 Prem Raj were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Jagdish Singh and DW2 Bali Singh were examined on behalf of the defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted the accused persons, viz., Anoop Singh and Dheeraj Singh of the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 and 498-A I.P.C. Accused-appellants were sentenced appropriately. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2001, present Criminal Appeal was preferred.
3. Prosecution led the evidence through PW1 Suresh Singh (informant), who said, in his examination in chief that Sushma was his younger sister, who was married to Anoop Singh on 21.5.1998. She was 21 years old when she was married. PW1 went to Ludhiana after the marriage of his sister. On 23.4.1999, he came to know that his sister was killed by her in-laws. PW1 reached his village on 24.4.1999. PW1 went to the matrimonial home of his sister on 25.4.1999. PW1 enquired about the reason of death of his sister. Her in-laws did not disclose anything specific. His sister had told PW1 in October, 1998 that her in-laws demanded colour T.V. In January 1999, his sister told to PW1 that her in-laws complained that no cash was given to them (her in-laws), who harass her on account of the same. On 26.9.1999, he went to patwari, who was on strike. PW1 went to S.D.M. Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal on 28.4.1999, but S.D.M. was not available. He again went to S.D.M. on 29.4.1999 and gave the complaint (Ext Ka-1). His sister never wrote a letter, because her matrimonial home was only at a distance of 5-6 kms. from her parental home. PW1’s parents died much before Sushma was married to Anoop Singh. Sushma was pregnant by seven months when she died. She was not cremated in PW1’s presence.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that PW1 said in his cross examination that he (PW1) was unemployed when his sister was married to appellant Anoop Singh, who too was unemployed till the incident took place. Learned counsel also drew attention of this court towards the statement in cross examination of PW1 that the marriage of Sushma and Anoop Singh was performed peacefully (without hiccups). The accused persons did not demand dowry on the occasion of marriage of Sushma with Anoop Singh. The baraties came on foot and returned on foot. There appears to be some sense in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that it was not a ‘dowry-death’.
5. PW2 Subhash Chandra Singh supported PW1. He was the brother of deceased and PW1. PW2 also said that when his sister came to her parental home in October 1998, she complained that her in-laws demanded colour T.V. Thereafter, in January 1999, her in-laws demanded cash. She told that her in-laws harass her for not bringing cash. On 20.4.1999, PW2 said that his sister was serious. PW2 withdrew Rs. 5,000/- and went
