Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Chiranji Pal - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttaranchal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2004
Decided On : 05-01-2022
Dowry Death - Criminal Law - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 4, Indian Penal Code, Section 304B, Section 498A - The judgment discusses the application of Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court analyzed the evidence to establish the demand of dowry, cruelty, and the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. Key legal provisions such as the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act were applied to determine the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Radha, was married to the appellant and died due to burn injuries within three months of the marriage. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his family members demanded additional dowry, subjected the deceased to cruelty, and caused her death. The defense claimed that the death was accidental and the prosecution failed to prove the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution was able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It considered the evidence of demand of dowry, harassment, and the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. The court applied the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act and concluded that the appellant was guilty.
Issues: The key issues revolved around proving the demand of dowry, establishing cruelty, and determining the circumstances of the deceased's death. The court also addressed the contradictions in witness statements and the defense's argument of the death being accidental.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of demand of dowry, statements of witnesses, and the circumstances surrounding the death to establish the guilt of the appellant. It emphasized the application of the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act in cases of dowry death.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to serve the remaining sentence. The court canceled the appellant's bail and directed the transmission of the judgment to the lower court for compliance.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2004/29.01.2004, recorded in Sessions Trial No. 338/2001 and 366/2001, State Vs. Chiranji Pal and four others, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 304B and 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced as hereunder:-
(ii) Under Section 498A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months.
(iii) Under Section 4 of the Act, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and with the fine of Rs.250/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months.
In fact, there is a typographical error in the impugned order, a paragraph above the order opens the mind of the Court, as to under what offences the appellant is to be convicted. But, in the first paragraph of the order, Section 498-A IPC as such has not been typed. But, it does not make any difference. Reading the judgment, makes it clear, as to under what offences the appellant has been convicted.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution is as follows:
The deceased, Radha, a girl of 18 years, was married to the appellant on 01.04.2001. Soon after the marriage, additional dowry was demanded. The PW1 Ved Prakash father of the deceased gave Rs. 13,000/- to the appellant, as additional dowry. On 03.07.2001, PW1 Ved Prakash, father of the deceased came to know that his daughter has been killed by the appellant and his family members. On 04.07.2001, PW1 Ved Prakash, the father of the deceased came to know that Radha died due to burn injuries. PW1 Ved Prakash, the father of the victim lodged a report of the incident on 04.07.2001, based on which, Case Crime No. 671/2001, under Section 498-A and 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act was lodged against the appellant and other family members at Police Station Kashipur.
3. On 04.07.2001, an inquest of the deceased was prepared and post mortem conducted. According to the post mortem report, the death was caused by shock and coma due to ante mortem burn injuries. The Investigating Officer (“IO”) also visited the place of occurrence. He prepared the site plan and took into custody various articles which includes a kerosene iron stove, burnt pieces of mattress, a plastic zericane without kerosene, a piece of burnt bed sheet and a half burnt ladies kurta. He also took into custody, a wedding invitation of the deceased. On 13.11.2001, the appellant and other accused were charged for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act, to which, they denied and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove the case, examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, PW1 Ved Prakash, PW2 Chetan Singh, PW3 Ganga Ram, PW4 Smt. Shakuntala Devi, PW5 Ramakant Prasad, PW6 Dr. D.C. Dhyani, PW7 Hansa Datt Pandey, and PW8 Prakash Chandra. In his defence, the appellant produced two defence witnesses, namely, DW1 Maqsood Ahmad and DW2 Pooran Singh.
5. After prosecution evidence, the appellant and other co-accused were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”). According to the appellant, he has been falsely implicated and the witnesses have falsely deposed against him. The appellant has stated that his wife Radha died due to accident. While cooking meals, she caught fire. The appellant tried to save her and in this process, his hands were also burnt.
6. The Court, after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted all the other accused but convicted and sentenc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
