Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 600
(SUPREME COURT)
Smt. Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
Bhupendra v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.1774 of 2008 : against the judgment of
M.P. High Court, passed in Criminal Appeal No.344 of 2001;
Decided on 11.11.2013.
J.C. Gupta with Rajesh, Yogesh Tiwari and Dharam Singh for appellant;
C.D. Singh and Ms. Sakshi Kakkar for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.304B and 306 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.113B -- case of suicide due to harassment for dowry -- chemical examination of viscera not mandatory in every such case -- mere fact of unnatural death sufficient for presumption of dowry death -- conviction upheld.
Held : These decisions clearly bring out that a chemical examination of the viscera is not mandatory in every case of a dowry death; even when a viscera report is sought for, its absence is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution when an unnatural death punishable under section 304B of the IPC or under section 306 of the IPC takes place; in a case of an unnatural death inviting section 304B of the IPC (read with the presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872) or section 306 of the IPC (read with the presumption under section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872) as long as there is evidence of poisoning, identification of the poison may not be absolutely necessary. (2005)13 SCC 455, (2007)10 SCC 774 and (1999)8 SCC 715 relied on.
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.304B and 306 -- unnatural dowry death can be homicidal or suicidal -- offence of causing dowry death and that of abetment of suicide not mutually exclusive. (2001)8 SCC 633, (1991)1 SCC 371 and (2000)5 SCC 207 relied on [Paras 32 to 35
¼1½ naaM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 304[k rFkk 306 & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 113[k & ngst ds fy, izrkM+uk ds dkj.k vkRegR;k dk ekeyk & ,sls izR;sd ekeys esa vkUrjkax dh jklk;fud ijh{kk vkKkid ugha & vizkd`frd e`R;q dk rF; ek= ngst e`R;q dh mi/kkj.kk ds fy, i;kZIr & nks”kflf) ekU;A
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bu fofu’p;ksa ls Li”V :i ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd ngst gR;k ds izR;sd ekeys esa vkUrjkax dh jklk;fud ijh{kk vkKkid ugh gS] tc vkUrjkax dh fjiksVZ dh bZIlk dh xbZ gks rc Hkh bldk vHkko vfHk;kstu ds ekeys ds fy, vko’;d :i ls ?kkrd ugha gS tc naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 304[k ;k 306 ds v/khu naMuh; vizkd`frd e`R;q gksrh gS] naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 304[k ¼lgifBr lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 dh /kkjk 113[k ds v/khu mi/kkj.kk½ ;k naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 306 ¼lgifBr lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 dh /kkjk 113d ds v/khu mi/kkj.kk½ dks vkd`”V djus okyh vizkd`frd e`R;q ds ekeys esa tc rd fo”k fn;k tkus dk lk{; gS] fo”k dh igpku vkR;afrd :i ls vko’;d ugha gks ldrhA ¼2005½13 ,l lh lh 455] ¼2007½10 ,l lh lh 774 rFkk ¼1999½8 ,l lh lh 715 voyafcrA
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 304[k rFkk 306 & vizkd`frd ngst e`R;q ekuo&o/k ;k vkRegR;k gks ldrh gS & ngst e`R;q dkfjr djus dk vijk/k rFkk vkRegR;k ds nq”izsj.k dk vijk/k ijLij vuU; ughaA ¼2001½8 ,l lh lh 633] ¼1991½1 ,l lh lh 371 rFkk ¼2000½5 ,l lh lh 207 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 32 ls 35½
Lokur, J. -- 1. The question before us is whether Bhupendra (the appellant) was rightly convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, Madhya Pradesh of having committed an offence punishable under section 498A, section 304B and section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and whether his conviction was rightly upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In our opinion the question must be answered in the affirmative and therefore we find no merit in this appeal.
The facts :
2. Geeta Bai married Bhupendra on 7th June, 1993 and at that time her father PW1 Bhika Ram gave dowry to Bhupendra and his family according to their means. The case of the prosecution was that Geeta Bai was harassed by Bhupendra and members of his family who demanded dowry over and above what was given to them at the time of marriage. Initially, the demand was for a she buffalo which was met by Bhika Ram. Then there was a further demand for Rs.10,000/- in cash on 20th August, 1996. However, since Bhika Ram was unable to meet this demand, and apparently fearing the worst, Geeta Bai consumed wheat tablets on the evening of 20th August, 1996 at her matrimonial home.
3. Since Geeta Bai had taken unwell, Bhupendra took her to the District Hospital at Morena for treatment. PW8 Dr. S.C. Aggarwal informed the Station Officer of Police Station City Kotwali at about 10:30 p.m. about the incident. Later on, Geeta Bai died at about 11:25 p.m. and intimation of this was also sent by Dr. Aggarwal to the Station Officer of Police Station City Kotwali. On the basis of the information received, a case was registered and investigations commenced by the police.
4. Separately, Bhika Ram made a complaint on 21st August, 1996 to the Superintendent of Police and to the District Magistrate at Morena that Bhupendra, his father Vrindavan and his mother Sheela Devi had caused the dowry death of Geeta Bai.
5. On the same day, a post-mortem examination was conducted on the body of Geeta Bai and it was opined by PW7 Dr. Siyaram Sharma (who had conducted the post-mortem examination) that she had two injuries on her body, one on the left forearm which was caused by a hard, blunt object while the other injury was on the back of the right hand caused by a tooth bite. Both these injuries were ante-mortem. It was also opined that the cause of death was suspected poisoning. [Though the viscera of the deceased were sent for chemical examination, the examination report had not been received when the witness was examined on 13th August, 1999.]
6. On these broad facts, a charge-sheet was filed against the three accused persons for offences punishable under sections 498A and 304B of the IPC and in the alternative for an offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC.
Decision of the trial Court :
7. The Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.328 of 1996 pronounced judgment on 6th June, 2001. It was held, on an examination of the oral and documentary evidence, that there was nothing to doubt the correctness and veracity of the evidence given by Bhika Ram, his wife PW2 Munni Devi, his brother-in-law PW3 Munna Lal, the aunt of the deceased being PW4 Urmila and Bhika Ram’s brother PW5 Ram Narayan.
8. It was held, on the basis of their evidence, that apart from the dowry given to Bhupendra’s family at the time of marriage, there was an additional demand for dowry made by Vrindavan to give him one buffalo. This demand was met by Bhika Ram but there was a further demand on 20th August, 1996 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- which could not be met by him.
9. It was also held that due to the inability of Bhika Ram to immediately meet the demand for additional dowry, Geeta Bai was subjected to harassment and cruelty for not bringing adequate dowry. She was subjected to beating and was not given proper clothes to wear about which she had even informed Bhika Ram.
10. Finally, it was held that Geeta Bai had died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage thereby inviting an adverse presumption of a dowry death aga
