Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Rajiv Sharma, Sharad Kumar Sharma, JJ.
State – Appellant
Versus
Devendra Singh and Others – Respondents
Government Appeal No. 57 of 2010
Decided On : 14-09-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Bhatt.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Nautiyal and Mr. B.S. Koranga.
The burden of proof on the prosecution, exemption from proving the exact happening of the incident in cases of 'last seen together,' and the application of legal principles from previous cases to establish guilt.
Headnote:
498-A - 304-B - 120-B - The judgment discusses the offenses under Section 498-A, 304-B, and 120-B of the IPC. It highlights the demand of dowry, harassment, and the death of the deceased due to ante mortem injuries. The court also refers to legal principles from previous cases to establish the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed for insufficient dowry by her in-laws and subsequently found dead. The defense claimed that the deceased fell into the river accidentally.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of offenses under Section 498-A, 304-B, and 120-B of IPC based on the evidence of harassment for dowry and the cause of the deceased's death.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the demand for dowry, harassment of the deceased, and the circumstances leading to her death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from previous cases to establish the guilt of the accused, emphasizing the burden of proof on the prosecution and the exemption from proving the exact happening of the incident in cases of 'last seen together.'
Final Decision: The judgment and order dated 17.04.2010 were quashed and set aside, and the accused-respondents were convicted under Section 498-A, 304-B, and 120-B of IPC. The convicts were ordered to be produced before the Court for the hearing on the quantum of sentence on October 05, 2017.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. State has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.04.2010, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2008, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for the offences under Section 498-A, 304-B and 120-B of IPC have been acquitted.
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 28.04.2008, PW-4 Tajwar Singh Bhandari submitted an application before the District Magistrate, Rudraprayag stating therein that his sister’s marriage was solemnized on 20.10.2007 with respondent Devendra Singh Bisht. His sister’s husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. His sister used to inform her family members about the demand of dowry raised by the respondents. On 25.04.2008 at about 7:00 PM, his mother received a telephonic call that her daughter was missing w.e.f. 24.04.2008. He was informed about the incident by his mother on telephone. On 27.04.2008, at about 8:00 PM, he reached his home. On 28.04.2008, he went to the house of his sister’s in-laws. From the behavior of the respondents, he could make out that his sister has been killed and dead body was disposed of. Thereafter, the FIR was registered and the investigation was carried out. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The doctor has opined that Smt. Sushila Devi has died due to ante mortem injuries and not due to drowning.
3. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses in its support. The statements of the respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution. They were acquitted, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this government appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the judgment and order dated 17.04.2010.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and record carefully.
6. PW-1 Smt. Thapa Devi has testified that her daughter was married with respondent- Devendra Singh. Her daughter, when came back for the first time from her in-laws house, told that her in-laws including her mother-in-law Kunja Devi, husband Devendra Singh and brother-in-law Jagdish were harassing her and demanding dowry. They were demanding Rs. 2.00 lakh or to construct a house for them in Haridwar. Her son was employed at Haridwar. She has apprised her sons about the demand raised by her daughter’s in-laws. She herself went to her daughter’s in-laws house on 10.04.2008. All of them fought with her. She has testified that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage that is why she has married her daughter with Devendra Singh. She came back on 11.04.2008. She received a telephonic call from her daughter that she was very upset. All the respondents were harassing her and used to beat her. Jagdish has asked her on telephone whether his sister-in-law has come to her parents house. She told him that she has not come to her house. He told that their daughter ran away. She was missing. She told this incident to her both sons. Both sons went to their sister’s in-laws house. She was searched. The dead body of her daughter was recovered on 10th day from Gochar in River Ganga. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that the expenditure of marriage reception was borne by both the parties. Her daughter, at the time of engagement was in 11th standard and she was pursuing her 12th from the local school, while staying with her parents. She has deposed that she came to know after 3-4 days, after her daughter went missing, that Kandi was recovered from the jungle. However, her slippers and sickle were not recovered.
7. PW-2 Balbir Singh is the brother of the deceased. According to him, they have given dowry according to their status. However, after few days, his sister was haras
