THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY LAW

COLLEGE

CASE COMMENT

Submitted by,
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
SL PAGE
NO TITLE NO.

1. TABLE OF CASES

2. INTRODUCTION
3.
ISSUES
4.
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT

5.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT

6.
JUDGEMENT

7.
REASON FOR THE DECISION

8.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS

9. CONCLUSION
 TABLE OF CASES

 Baljinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab,

 Baljinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab,
 Bharwada Ghoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujrat.
 Dinesh vs. State of Haryana,
  Hira Lal and Others vs. State of State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi,
 Sher Singh alias Partapa Vs. State of Haryana,

INTRODUCTION
The Appellant assails the reversal of his acquittal, and,consequent conviction under S
ection 302 I.P.C. sentencing him to life imprisonment.  The instant jail appeal has been
preferred by the accused-appellant challenging the judgment ,Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial
No.529 of 2015 (State vs. Deepak and two others) convicting the present appellant
under Section 498-A IPC sentencing him to undergo three years imprisonment along with
fine to the tune of Rs.5000/- and, in case of default thereof, he was further to undergo three
months additional imprisonment and under Section 304-B IPC sentencing him to undergo
eight years imprisonment. 
 FACTS

An First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR") had been lodged by the
informant namely Deena Nath (PW-1) with respect to dowry death of his daughter, who was
allegedly killed by her in-laws. As per F.I.R. version, marriage of informant's daughter was
solemnized with Deepak (accused/appellant herein). At the time of marriage, he had given
Rs.1 lakh cash as well as goods worth Rs.1 lakh. That apart, he had given one golden chain
and golden ring to the groom, but in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied with the dowry.
Husband (Deepak), father-in-law (Dinesh alias Tota Ram), mother-in-law (Sunita), brother-
in-law (Anshu) and sister-in-law (Rekha w/o Anshu) of his daughter used to physically and
mentally torture her for want of motorcycle and cash amounting Rs.50,000/-. Due to non-
fulfillment of their demand of dowry, they used to beat her up. In-laws of his daughter had
attempted several times to kill her, who used to tell her ordeal to her parents. On 22.11.2014,
her in-laws kicked her out from their house, later on, when relatives intervened in the matter,
they permitted her to enter the house on 20.05.2015, but she was throughout subjected to
cruelty. On 12.06.2015 at about 12:30 hours, police informed him about his daughter's death.
After reaching there, he came to know the entire facts.

The informant believed that five accused, as mentioned above, had hanged his
daughter to death due to non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry. The trial court, after
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on the record,
had convicted the present appellant under Section 498-A & 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the
D.P. Act
 ISSUES

 Whether the accused has committed the offence under Section 498-A & 304-B IPC
and Section 4 of the D.P. Act?
 Whether the burden of proof lies on the accused?
 whether the victim had died otherwise than under normal circumstances and it was
shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her
husband or his relatives for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry.?
 ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT

 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted as under :-PW-1 Dina Nath and
PW-2 Anil had deposed that neither demand of dowry was made, nor the victim was
harassed and tortured in their presence. Deposition of PW-3 was contrary to the
deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 with respect to the demand of dowry, who has stated that
accused-appellant has demanded dowry of cash Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle from the
parents and brother of the deceased.There is a glaring discrepancy/contradiction between
the statements of PWs-2 and 3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and their deposition
before the Court with respect to the condition and position of the dead body at the time
when they reached at the crime scene.There is no evidence of persistent demand of dowry
from the victim or her parents. There is no independent witness to corroborate the
prosecution's case qua demand of dowry. Disclosure made by the victim before her
parents is the only evidence available regarding demand of dowry made by accused
persons, which is not sufficient to prove the accusation, that too in light of the fact that
PWs-1 and 2 have specifically deposed that no demand of dowry had been made from
them. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no corroborating
evidence to prove that soon before the death of the victim she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment in connection with demand of dowry, therefore, presumption qua dowry death
of the victim cannot be drawn under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872
(hereinafter referred to as "Evidence Act").)

Except one stray incident i.e. dated 22.11.2014 wherein the victim had allegedly
been kicked out of her matrimonial home by her in-laws', there is no other corroborating
evidence to constitute a proximate live link with death of the deceased. Learned counsel
for the appellant has emphasized that no complaint was made with regard to the alleged
incident dated 22.11.2014 and even after 20.05.2015, on which date the victim was
accepted/returned in her in-laws family. There is no evidence of demand of dowry from
20.05.2015 till the date of her death i.e. 12.06.2015.  Forensic Expert (PW-9) and
Tehsildar (PW-4), who have treated the death as suicidal death. Even Dr. Anil Nigam
(PW-5), who had conducted the post mortem examination, has also pointed out
possibility of suicidal death.  she had committed suicide because of refusal made by her
husband, while she was adamant to go to her parental house, it cannot be ruled out that
she had committed suicide due to subjecting her to harassment and cruelty for demand of
dowry. He further submits that in the aforesaid situation it cannot be said that the present
case is a case where crime of dowry death has been commissioned by the accused-
appellant. No corroborating evidence was adduced on behalf of prosecution to prove the
accusation against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts, even after
considering all the facts and circumstances, culpability of the present accused-appellant
cannot be inferred in commission of crime as alleged in the F.I.R.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT

  Learned A.G.A. has submitted as under :-victim was subjected to harassment and
cruelty for want of additional dowry of cash Rs.50,000/- and one motorcycle.  Due to bad
behaviour of in-laws, victim came to her parental house on 22.11.2014 and, thereafter, it took
six months to negotiate the matter with the in-laws of victim, who had ultimately agreed to
accept the victim in their family on 20.05.2015 but unfortunately on 12.06.2015 she had been
reported dead. PWs-1, 2 and 3 are consistent in their statements showing cause of death due
to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Minor discrepancies, if any, occurred in their
statements, will not affect the merits of the case. Much emphasis cannot be given to the
statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the light of the fact that all the
prosecution witnesses have successfully supported the case of dowry death of the victim as
mentioned in the FIR. It is further submitted that under Section 313-A of Evidence Act,
burden lies upon the accused to explain the circumstances wherein victim had allegedly
committed suicide. injury no.(2) as mentioned in the post mortem report wherein one
contusion has been shown on the front of forehead just above both eyebrows and manner of
injury has been shown by (i) hanging and (ii) use of hard and blunt object. In the light of post
mortem report, learned A.G.A. has submitted that soon before death, victim was subjected to
cruelty and harassment. Accused had failed to explain the ante mortem forehead injury
caused to victim. Even three defence witnesses have admitted that there was some quarrel
between the parties on the date of incident due to refusal by husband regarding victim's visit
to her parental home. Injury report and the statements of witnesses supports the case of dowry
death and the accused should be convicted for imprisonment for life. Present jail appeal filed
on behalf of accused/appellant is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. There is no
illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court
below in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 304 B/34, 498 A/34 IPC and
Section 4 of D.P. Act and case is fully made out in the aforesaid sections against the accused-
appellant.

JUDGEMENT
   The present appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and
sentence of appellant under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and under Section 4 of D.P.
Act as awarded by Court below is hereby upheld and impugned judgment and order dated
30.11.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court (created by XIVth
Finance Commission), Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No.529 of 2015, is hereby
affirmed and maintained.

REASON FOR THE DECISION

Matter in hand pertains to dowry death of the lady who had been allegedly hanged
by her in-laws. As per FIR version and deposition of prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs-1, 2
and 3, who are witnesses of fact, victim was throughout subjected to cruelty and
harassment for want of dowry, inasmuch as, after sometime of marriage while she came
to her parental home, she told her ordeal that her in-laws are demanding Rs.50,000/- cash
and one motorcycle.  It is a case of circumstantial evidence wherein wife of appellant
no.1 has been found dead due to hanging (otherwise than under normal circumstances)
and her death has been treated as dowry death under Section 304-B IPC. On the basis of
statement made by prosecution witnesses, learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that
demand of dowry was the root cause and drew the victim to take a drastic step of ending
her life. With a view to curb the growing menace of dowry death, Section 304-B has been
inserted in the Indian Penal Code and as a supporting deal, presumptive provision
in Section 113-B has been inserted in the Evidence Act. Legal presumption qua dowry
death has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Sher Singh alias Partapa Vs.
State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 724.  the main ingredients of dowry death is harassment
and cruelty for demand of dowry, which should be examined first. As per prosecution
case, marriage of the victim and appellant herein was solemnized on 10.12.2012. Factum
of marriage was admitted by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Even
defence witnesses have admitted marriage of the accused-appellant with the victim in the
year 2012.

There is also no dispute that victim was found dead within seven years of her
marriage. As per F.I.R. version, on 12.06.2015 father of the victim had received
telephonic information from the police with respect of his daughter's death. Factum of
death had not been disputed by the accused in his defence, which occurred within two and
half years of the marriage. Factum of demand of dowry has been asserted by the
prosecution witnesses, though the same has been denied by the accused in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the deposition of the defence witnesses. Defence has failed
to point out any diversity or weakness in the cross-examination of PWs-1, 2 and 3,
suggesting any doubt in their depositions. Prosecution witnesses, in their depositions, had
successfully made out a case of persistent demand of dowry and cruelty against the in-
laws of the victim and corroborated the prosecution case as mentioned in the FIR, though
the accused persons had denied these allegations in their statements under Section
313 Cr.P.C. Even the defence witnesses had denied the factum of demand of dowry in
their depositions, though they failed to create any doubt in the accusation made by the
prosecution.

Though the minor discrepancies or contradictions are not of much relevance in

examining the facts and circumstances responsible for the commission of the crime,
inasmuch as, with the passage of time when witnesses are called in the witness box, they
may have some problem, for many reasons, in recollecting the exact happening which
took place on the date of occurrence. In this respect, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharwada
Ghoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1983 SC 753, has expounded the law
showing several conditions wherein minor discrepancies could be occurred and same
should be ignored. prosecution has succeeded in making out a case of persistent demand
of dowry and defence has failed to create any doubt in all the probabilities of persistent
demand of dowry. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there
was no evidence on record to prove that soon before her death the victim was subjected to
cruelty or harassment in relation to demand of dowry. After the incident dated 22.11.2014
when she was allegedly thrown out from her in-laws' house, there was no incident taken
place to support the case of the prosecution. There was no other incident of cruelty or
harassment with the victim, which can constitute a proximate live link with death of
deceased. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon
paragraph 18 of the judgment rendered in Baljinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 2
SCC 629, After considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the
appreciation of evidence available on record, the considered view that there was
persistent demand of dowry made by accused from the victim who was used to subjected
to cruelty and harassment for such demand and ultimately she had ended her life in
suspicious circumstances wherein injury no.(2) inflicted on her forehead suggesting some
violence soon before her death. PWs-1, 2 and 3 are consistent in their statements with
regard to demand of dowry and cruelly attitude made by her in-laws. Just after marriage
victime has been subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of Rs.50,000/- cash and
one motorcycle and she narrated her ordeal to her parents and other family members,
whenever she got opportunity to talk with them. After great persuasion and intervention
of relatives, she had been sent to her matrimonial home, but unfortunately within 15 days
thereafter she had been driven to take a drastic step in which ended her life.
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

In the facts and circumstances of present case, it cannot be said that there was
stray incident of demand of dowry. Death of victim within two and half years of marriage
in suspicious circumstance wherein seat of injury no.(2) at forehead of deceased and
persistent demand of dowry shows that soon before her death, she was subjected to
cruelty and harassment by her husband for, or in connecting with, demand of dowry.
Prosecution has successfully discharges its duty and it is obligatory on the Court to raise a
presumption that accused caused the dowry death. No unimpeachable evidence has been
adduced by the accused to prove his innocence and rebut his complicity in commission of
crime of dowry death. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Learned Court below has rightly held the present
appellant guilty under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.

Prosecution has successfully proved the accusation by preponderance of

probability, but defence has failed to discharge his burden qua deemed presumption of his
guilt, beyond reasonable doubt.

Perusal of evidence of prosecution in totality of surrounding circumstances along

with other evidence available on record, in which crime is alleged to have commissioned,
it can easily be inferred that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment for
demand of dowry and the chain of incidents constitute proximate live link with the death
of deceased.
 CONCLUSION

. In   the   entirety   of   the   evidence,   the   facts   and circumstances   of

the   case,   we   are   unable   to   sustain   the
conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and are,satisfied that it des
erves to be altered to Section 304 PartII I.P.C.  There is no illegality, infirmity
or perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Learned Court below has rightly held the present appellant guilty under Section
304-B and 498-A IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.