Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 692
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
U.C.Maheshwari, J.
Balram Sanodiya and others - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1831-1996 & From the Judgment and Order dated 9-10-1996 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Seoni. in S.T. No. 20-1995.
Decided On : 19-01-2012
Appearances :Mr. S.C. Datt, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Pushpendra Dubey tor the Appellants
Mr. Rakesh Kesharwuni, Advocate for the Respondent/State.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the death as unnatural and the evidence of dowry harassment to establish the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC.
Headnote:
IPC - Dowry Harassment - Sections 304-B, 498-A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and their essential ingredients. It highlighted the requirement to prove the death of a woman by burns or bodily injury, occurrence within seven years of marriage, and harassment for dowry to establish the offence under Section 304-B. The court also emphasized the need for evidence showing harassment or cruelty by the husband or relatives for the offence under Section 498-A.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was allegedly subjected to harassment and cruelty for dowry by the appellants. The cause of her death was in question, and the prosecution failed to prove it as unnatural. The court analyzed the evidence and found insufficient proof of unnatural death, leading to acquittal under Section 304-B. However, the court affirmed the conviction under Section 498-A based on evidence of dowry harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the death as unnatural, leading to acquittal under Section 304-B. However, it affirmed the conviction under Section 498-A based on evidence of dowry harassment.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the cause of the deceased's death, proof of harassment for dowry, and the applicability of Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence proving the death as unnatural, leading to acquittal under Section 304-B. However, it relied on the evidence of dowry harassment to affirm the conviction under Section 498-A.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants from the charge under Section 304-B of IPC but affirmed the conviction under Section 498-A. It reduced the jail sentence and enhanced the fine for the appellants under Section 498-A.
1. The appellants/accused have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9-10-1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Seoni, in S.T. No. 20/95 convicting each of them under Sections 304-B and498-A of IPC for RI eight years in earlier section while R1 two years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in later.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellant No. 1 Balram Sanodiya got married with the deceased Kumari Bai on 4-5-1992. Subsequent to such marriage she was residing at her matrimonial home where she was subjected to harassment and cruelty on account of demand of Rs. 20,000/- in dowry. In her life time she apprised about such act of the appellants and of other members of their family to her parents. Lastly she was taken from her parental home to matrimonial home by appellant No. 1 Balram on 13-9-1994. Subsequent to it, said Kumari Bai sent a letter dated 13-9-1994, which was written at her instance by some Bhagwat Singh, to her father contending that she is facing the torture and harassment of appellants and other family member on account of non-fulfillment of their demand of Rs. 20,000/- in dowry. Such letter was handed over by Bhagwat Singh to the father of Kumari Bai. Thereafter on 15-9-1994 said Kumari Bai has passed away. On receiving such information her father Jagdish gave a report in writing to the Police Station, Lakhanwada, District Seoni contending that deceased was taken to her matrimonial home by appellant No. 1 on 13-9-1994 and thereafter on 16-9-1994 he received the information of her death. It is also stated that he has a doubt that the family member of his daughter's in-laws family have killed her because of nonfulfillment of their requisite demand of dowry. On such report in writing (Exh. P-2) an inquest report was registered at the same police station. In the course of its inquiry after preparing the Panchnama of dead body in presence of the witnesses the same was sent to hospital, where its post-mortem was carried out. According to post-mortem report (Exh. P-4) no definite opinion regarding cause of death was given by Dr. M.K. Tiwari (P.W. 3). However, viscera was preserved and later the same was sent to FSL Sagar for its chemical examination. In the course of inquiry of said inquest the aforesaid letter dated 13-9-1994 written by Bhagwat Singh (P.W. 2) at the instance of deceased Kumari Bai was also seized in presence of the witnesses. According to which the deceased informed her father regarding cruelty and harassment carried out with her by the appellants and other family members on account of aforesaid demand of dowry. In the course of inquiry, it was found that the deceased died with unnatural death within seven years from the date of her marriage with the appellant No. 1 and soon before death also she was subjected to demand of Rs. 20,000/- in dowry. In suth premises on 24-9-1994 a Crime No. 88/94 was registered against the present appellants and deceased appellant No. 2 the father-in-law of the deceased Kumari Bai for the offence of Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC. The witnesses were interrogated and the appellants and co-accused were arrested. On completion of investigation the appellants along with co-accused the other family members of the appellants-were charge-sheeted for the offence of Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC.
3. After committing the case of the Sessions Court, on evaluation of charge-sheet the charge of Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC were framed against the appellants and other co-accused. They abjured the guilt on which the trial was held. After recording the evidence on appreciation of the same by acquitting the co-accused Jagram and Netram from the alleged charges the present appellants and deceased Khusiram were held guilty for the offence of Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and each of them was punished with the above mentioned punishment. Being dissatisfied with such conviction and sentence the appellants have come to this Court with this appeal.
