Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Veera Kaur – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 55, 66 of 2005
Decided On : 19-12-2023
DOWRY DEATH - Criminal Appeals - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304B, Section 506; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 3/4 - Section 304B IPC, Section 506 IPC, Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - The court discussed the ingredients of dowry death, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the requirement of a nexus between harassment and death. The court also considered the interpretation of 'soon before her death' and the need for unimpeachable evidence in relation to dowry demand.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was married to the appellant and died under suspicious circumstances. The prosecution alleged harassment and demand for dowry, while the defense presented evidence contradicting the prosecution's claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubt, and the circumstances were not sufficient to connect the appellants with the alleged offence. The appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Issues: The key issues were the presence of harassment and demand for dowry, the timing of the alleged harassment in relation to the death, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the alleged offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for unimpeachable evidence in relation to dowry demand and the requirement of a nexus between the demand for dowry and the harassment. It also highlighted the interpretation of 'soon before her death' and the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
Final Decision: The appellants were acquitted of all charges, and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
1. These two Criminal Appeals have arisen from a common judgment dated 04.04.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/IInd Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 345 of 2003, State vs. Malkeet Singh and Others, by which, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 506 IPC and, they have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. The file of Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2005 has already been consolidated with the file of Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2005.
3. The case of the prosecution is that Smt. Surinder Kaur (deceased) was married to the appellant-Malkeet Singh on 14.11.2002. The appellant Smt. Veera Kaur was the mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Surinder Kaur. Appellant-Kripal Singh was the father-in-law of the deceased. Appellant-Manjit Singh was the brother-in-law (Devar) of the deceased and appellant-Malkeet Singh was the husband of the deceased. Everything was fine till two months of marriage. Thereafter, the appellants started harassing the deceased demanding Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle. Whenever she used to come to her parental house, she used to tell about her torture. On the day of her last Rakshabandhan, she had gone to her parental house with her husband. Her husband demanded Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle saying that he would not take his wife with him without the money and the motorcycle.
4. The deceased’s father Sohan Singh (PW-1) is the cousin of Bariyam Singh (PW-2). The deceased died on 07.09.2003 at her in-laws’ house. She was pregnant at the time of her death. A day before her death, she had informed Bariyam Singh (PW-2) over phone that her in-laws were threatening her, demanding Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle.
5. An FIR (Ext.Ka.7) was registered on 07.09.2003 at 13:15 hrs. After registration of the case, Ali Hasan, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khatima prepared the inquest report (Ext.Ka.2). The inquest proceedings were written by Mohan Chandra Durgapal, the Senior Sub-Inspector (PW-4) in his own handwriting.
6. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. M.S. Martolia (PW-5) on 08.09.2003. As per the post-mortem report (Ext.Ka.9), the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained, hence the viscera was preserved for examination.
7. According to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh, Agra dated 05.11.2003 (Ext.Ka.15), organochloro insecticide poison was found in stomach, pieces of intestine, pieces of liver, kidney and spleen, but, the said poison was not found in the salt solution sent to the Laboratory.
8. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and the site plan was prepared. Ashok Kumar Bhatt, the Circle Officer (PW-6) filed the charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.14) before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
9. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The charges were framed against the appellants-accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges, examined altogether six witnesses.
11. The statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The appellants-accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution.
12. The appellants-accused persons examined Smt. Harnam Kaur (DW-1), Kehar Singh (DW-2) and Santa Singh (DW-3) in their defence evidence.
13. Learned Trial Court heard arguments, appreciated the evidence and held that the prosecution has been successful to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable
AI
The judgment establishes the principle that unimpeachable evidence is required to prove dowry demand, and suspicion cannot substitute legal proof in criminal cases.
The prosecution must establish the commission of the alleged offense beyond all reasonable doubt, and there is a need for unimpeachable evidence in relation to dowry demand and the establishment of a....
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, establishing that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry demands, leading to her suicide, thus satisfying the legal requirements fo....
The prosecution must establish the demand for dowry, harassment, and a nexus between the two, beyond all reasonable doubt. Additionally, abetment in cases of suicide requires clear and cogent evidenc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of Section 304-B of the IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the presumption of dowry de....
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death to sustain a conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The judgment emphasizes the need for evidence to prove cruelty and harassment for a dowry demand, and highlights the importance of material witnesses in establishing the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must establish all ingredients of Section 304B IPC, including demand for dowry soon before death, to invoke presumption of guilt under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
To convict under Section 304-B IPC, it must be proven that the victim faced cruelty for dowry-related demands occurring soon before death, which was not established in this case.
The judgment underscores that in dowry death cases, the prosecution must prove cruelty and demand for dowry beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction.
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
