The Patna High Court, while allowing appeals filed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 21.01.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby and whereunder the appellants were found guilty and convicted for the offenses punishable under Sections 304(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, held that Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal code clearly says that in case of abnormal death if it is shown that soon before the death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand of dowry, such death can only be called dowry death.
Brief Facts:
The prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that the informant Gita Paswan had solemnized the marriage of his daughter with the appellant in the year 1996. It is further alleged that on 09.12.2000, he got information that last night his daughter was killed by his son-in-law and his family members and they disposed of her dead body. It is alleged by the informant that her daughter Saraswati Devi was killed by the appellants due to non-fulfillment of the dowry demand and they managed to flee away after concealing the dead body of her daughter.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that during the investigation, several witnesses stated that the deceased, with her husband, was living separately after marriage from his other brothers. She argued that the learned trial Court completely failed to appreciate the essential ingredients of Section 304(B) IPC as no witness had deposed that soon before the death of the informant’s daughter, any demand of dowry was made by the appellants and the death was an unnatural death. The prosecution story is completely weak and as such, the order passed by the learned trial court is bad, illegal, and perverse in the eye of the law.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit and proper and based on consistent and cogent evidence and the conviction of the appellants is fit and proper. There is no need for interference in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Due to the non-fulfillment of dowry demand, the deceased was murdered within seven years from the date of marriage at her matrimonial home by the accused persons.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that there is nothing to show that soon before the death there was any demand or torture by the appellants which is a necessary ingredient to bring the accused under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court observed that Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal code clearly says that in case of abnormal death if it is shown that soon before the death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand of dowry, such death can only be called dowry death. Mere death of the deceased being unnatural in the matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict the accused persons u/s 304B of the IPC. The Court said that in case of circumstantial evidence, the chain must be completed to establish the guilt of the accused. In the instant case, there is no such circumstantial evidence/chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the appeals, held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, and the conviction of the appellants cannot be upheld.
Case Title: Munilal Paswan vs The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Hon’ble Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.84 of 2006
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. Vaishnavi Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Anita Kri. Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
