The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that in order to draw presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, it is essential to establish that there should be dowry demand soon before the death.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Appellant was married to the deceased and they were blessed with a child from their wedlock. After marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and his family members because of dowry. Furthermore, after the marital discord, the appellant and his wife started living separately with other family members. The separate arrangement was their accommodation was made in chas. Thereafter, the father of the deceased received information that his daughter had been done to death and after receiving the said information, he went there and found his daughter locked in a room where she was killed by indiscriminate assault and also by throttling. The FIR was registered for the offenses under Section 304B IPC and 3/4 of the D.P. Act against the appellant and his family members. The trial court convicted the Appellant. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that in the FIR it was alleged that the cause of the death of the deceased was indiscriminately assaulted and throttled to death. However, in the postmortem report, there exists no evidence of throttling and the doctor opined that the cause of the death was heart failure.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that it is necessary to prove that there should have been dowry demand soon before the death in order to establish presumption under Section 113B of the dowry demand.
It was furthermore observed that there exist contradictions regarding the quantum of demand and the object behind the dowry death.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case title: Anup Kumar Vishwakarma Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Chaudhary
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 307 of 2013
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. N.K. Sahani
Advocate for the State: Mr. Someshwar Roy, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
