SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 831

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)
N.V. Ramana, CJI., Surya Kant, Hima Kohli, JJ.
Parvati Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar Now State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 2012
With
Ram Sahay Mahto - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar Now State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2012
Decided On : 17-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Aabhas Parimal, Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Siddharth Gautam, Himanshu Sharma, Somnath Pradhan, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Tapesh Kumar Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh, Aditya Narayan Das, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Once prosecution has been able to demonstrate that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soon before her death, Court shall proceed on a presumption that persons who have subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry, have caused a dowry death within meaning of Section 304B IPC.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 – Indian Evidence Act,1872 – Section 113B – Dowry death and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Highly decomposed body recovered from banks of river – Once prosecution has been able to demonstrate that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soon before her death, Court shall proceed on a presumption that persons who have subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry, have caused a dowry death within meaning of Section 304B IPC – Said presumption is, rebuttable and can be dispelled on accused being able to demonstrate through cogent evidence that all ingredients of Section 304B IPC have not been satisfied – In instant case, despite shoddy investigation conducted by prosecution, circumstances set out in Section 304B of IPC have been established in light of fact that deceased had gone missing from her matrimonial home within a few months of her marriage and immediately after demands of dowry were made on her and that her death had occurred under abnormal circumstances, such a death would have to be characterized as a “dowry death” – Recovery of body from banks of river clearly indicates that deceased had died under abnormal circumstances that could only be explained by her husband and in-laws, as she was residing at her matrimonial home when she suddenly disappeared and no plausible explanation was offered for her disappearance – High Court and trial Court have rightly raised presumption against him under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act – However, prosecution has not produced any villager who was a witness to body of deceased being taken out of matrimonial home and carried to river – Conviction and sentence partly affirmed. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 23)

Facts of the case:

Ram Sahay Mahto, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 575/2012 (A-1) and his mother Parvati Devi, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 574/2012 (A-3) are aggrieved by the common judgment dated 1st May, 2007 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand upholding the judgment of conviction dated 20th September, 1999 under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 IPC passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, sentencing them and Nema Mahto (father of A-1 and husband of A-3) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and three years respectively on each count with both the sentences running concurrently.

Findings of Court:

Recovery of the body from the banks of the river clearly indicates that deceased had died under abnormal circumstances that could only be explained by her husband and in-laws, as she was residing at her matrimonial home when she suddenly disappeared and no plausible explanation was offered for her disappearance.

Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. Ram Sahay Mahto, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 575/2012 (hereinafter referred to as A-1) and his mother Parvati Devi, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 574/2012 (hereinafter referred to as A-3) are aggrieved by the common judgment dated 1st May, 2007 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand upholding the judgment of conviction dated 20th September, 1999 under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 IPC passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, sentencing them and Nema Mahto (father of A-1 and husband of A-3) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and three years respectively on each count with both the sentences running concurrently. For the record, Nema Mahto had also preferred an appeal registered as SLP (Crl.) No. 6955 of 2009 which abated on his expiring during its pendency.

2. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the impugned judgment is that the informant, Bodhi Mahto (PW–3) had got his daughter, Fulwa Devi, married to Ram Sahay Mahto (A-1) in the year 1997 and within a few months of the marriage, A-1, his father Nema Mahto (since deceased) and mother, Parvati Devi (A-3) started to harass Fulwa Devi raising a demand for a sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash and a Rajdoot Motor cycle. On expressing the inability of her parents to satisfy their demands, she was brutally assaulted and threatened that A-1 would be married off to another girl. Thereafter, on information being received that his daughter had gone missing from her matrimonial home, P.W.3 rushed to her home but finding her traceless, he approached Birni Police Station and lodged a missing complaint. A case was registered by the local police on 8th August, 1997 against A-1, A-2 and A-3 being Case No. 71 of 1997, for the offences under Sections 304/201/34 IPC. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused for the aforesaid offences along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Five days after the FIR was lodged by PW-3 on 13th August, 1997, a skeleton was recovered from the banks of river Barakar, at a distance of about one kilometer short of Village Sirmadih which was assumed to be that of Fulwa Devi. Charges were framed against the three accused under Sections 304B/34, 201/34 IPC. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, whereas the accused examined six witnesses. The material witnesses examined by the prosecution included Dr. B.P. Singh (PW-1), the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body, Sahdeo Mahto (PW-2), brother–in–law of the deceased, Bodhi Mahto (PW-3), father of the deceased as well as the informant, Jogeshwar Mahto (PW-4), brother of the deceased, Tiki Devi (PW-5), wife of PW–4 (sister-in-law/Bhabhi of the deceased) and Suresh Prasad Singh (PW-6), the Investigating Officer.

4. After a critical analysis of the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, the High Court summarized their testimony. Dr. Bhupendra Prasad Singh (PW–1) deposed that he had conducted the autopsy of the dead body produced before him as that of Fulwa Devi and found the body to be highly decomposed. The left leg, left forearm and left hand were absent. Similarly, the right upper limb and right lower limb below the knee joint were absent. No evidence of any antemortem injury was found. The time that had elapsed till the post-mortem examination was conducted, was assessed as one week.

5. Bodhi Mahto (PW-3), the informant and the father of the deceased testified that his deceased daughter was married to A-1 and within a few months of her marriage, the accused had started maltreating her and complained about inadequate dowry given by her parents. They had demanded cash of Rs. 20,000/-and a Rajdoot Motor cycle from his daughter and had threatened that if their demand was not met, she would be exterminated. Fulwa Devi had shared this demand of additional dowry with her parents, brother and sister-in-law. A s

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top