The Division Judge Bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded only for the reason that they happen to be related to the deceased. After all it is only the family members who can be in knowing of matters regarding dowry demand and cruelty in reference to it. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or other convicted, because he had some animus towards the accused. Related witness is not equivalent to interested witness.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that as per the informant, the marriage of the deceased and the appellant was solemnized in the year 2010. The Appellant and his mother started subjecting her to cruelty and harassment in reference to the dowry demand and after Durga Puja, the appellant after quarreling with her daughter, took her from her maike and due to non-fulfillment of the dowry demand, in the night appellant, and his mother Sonia Devi set her on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil. Thereafter, the case was registered for the offense under Section 304B/34 IPC against the appellant and his mother. The trial court convicted the Appellant for the offense under Section 304B/34 of the IPC. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that only interested and related witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It was furthermore contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the dowry demand soon before the death of the deceased. Also, there exists a contradiction in the factum of subjecting to cruelty and harassment of the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act can be raised only if the foundational facts are proved. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the deceased died within seven years of marriage.
The Court furthermore observed that the mere fact that the witnesses are related to the deceased does not invalidate the testimony of the witnesses. Ultimately, only family members have the potential to be aware of issues pertaining to dowry demand and the cruelty associated with it. The definition of interested implies that the individual in question must have a direct stake in the accused person's conviction due to personal enmity against the accused. The related witness is not equivalent to an interested witness.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the prosecution has established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in reference to dowry demand soon before her death and the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is liable to be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: Srikant Chauhan V. The State of Jharkhand.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (DB) No.611 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Aurn Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sushant Kr. Ganjhu, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Azeemuddin, APP
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
