The Three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Chief Justice N. V. Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli opined that once the 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, the Court shall proceed on a presumption that the persons who have subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, have caused a dowry death within the meaning of Section 304B IPC. The said presumption is, however, rebuttable and can be dispelled on the accused being able to demonstrate through cogent evidence that all the ingredients of Section 304B IPC have not been satisfied.
Facts
The informant, Bodhi Mahto (PW–3) had got his daughter, Fulwa Devi, married to Ram Sahay Mahto (A-1) 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 Motorcycle. 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 against A-1, A-2 and A-3, for the offences u/s 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. Five days after the FIR was lodged by PW-3, 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.
Procedural History
Charges were framed against the three accused u/s 304B/34, 201/34 IPC. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, whereas the accused examined six witnesses. After a critical analysis of the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, the High Court summarized their testimony.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
They further observed that:
“As for Parvati Devi, A-3 (Mother-in-law), from the evidence on record only certain omnibus allegations have been made against her with respect to dowry demands. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to indicate any specific allegations, nor point to any specific evidence or testimony against her. In fact, in the only direct evidence before the Court, PW-3 (informant and father of the victim) mentions that A-2 threatened to harm the deceased. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that it is necessary to interfere with the findings of the Courts.”
Judgment
The Bench set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the event the department wanted to continue with the matter, and on producing the material the Disciplinary Authority was satisfied that a fresh charge memorandum ought to be issued, such charge memorandum shall be issued not beyond a period of two months, and thereafter the proceeding shall take its own course.
Case Name: Parvati Devi vs The State of Bihar Now State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 000574-000574 of 2012
Bench: Chief Justice N. V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Hima Kohli
Decided on: 17th December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
