Jharkhand High Court
Prabhat Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1180 of 2016
------
(Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2016
and order of sentence dated 21.09.2016, passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra, in S.T.
No.177 of 2014)
------
1. Prabhat Kumar, son of Sri Radhika Raman Singh
2. Radhika Raman Singh, son of Late Rudo Singh
3. Sushila Devi, wife of Radhika Raman Singh
All resident of Village Salgi, P.O. Jabra, P.S. Simaria,
District Chatra, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Respondent
------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellants : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
------
JUDGMENT
CAV on 23.09.2024 Pronounced on : 25/10/2024
Per Ananda Sen, J.:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the
appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated
19.09.2016 and order of sentence dated 21.09.2016, passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra, in S.T. No.177
of 2014, whereby the appellants have been convicted for
offences under Section 304 B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of 10 years each with fine of Rs.25,000/- each
under Section 304 B IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 1 year each with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, and in default of payment of fine
amount, further to undergo simple imprisonment of two years.
2. Learned senior counsel representing the appellants
submitted that there is no material to convict the appellant
Nos.2 and 3, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
deceased. Admittedly from the evidence, there is nothing to
suggest that they had demanded money as dowry nor there is
evidence to suggest that they had tortured the deceased. So
far as appellant No.1 is concerned, it has been submitted that
the allegation that he being the husband, demanded dowry and
tortured the deceased, is also without any legal evidence. On
this ground, he prays that this appeal be allowed.
3. Per contra, learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of the
appellants and submitted that the appellants together carried
out the incident. He stated that almost every witnesses have
stated that there was constant demand of dowry by her in-laws
and before her death, she was subjected to assault and cruelty
for non-fulfilment of dowry. He submitted that it is a case of
dowry death and the decision of the learned Trial Court in
convicting and sentencing the appellants does not warrant any
interference as the in-laws of the deceased subjected her to
assault for non-fulfilment of dowry and thereafter set her
ablaze, due to which her body got burnt and she died. He im-
plored this Court that this appeal may be dismissed.
4. The case of the prosecution as delineated in the
First Information Report on the basis of the fardbayan of
informant- Jitendra Kumar Singh, is that he solemnized
marriage of his sister namely Kanchan Devi with appellant
No.1-Prabhat Kumar in the year 2010. He as per his capability
had also given dowry for his sister's marriage. His sister stayed
for about ten days in her matrimonial home. Thereafter she
went to her paternal home (naihar) and remained there for two
years. One day appellant No.1 - Prabhat Kumar came there
and told his sister that her father has only paid Rs.1,00,000/-
and given a gold chain weighing 10 gms instead of
Rs.4,00,000/- and gold chain weighing 40 gms. He further told
his sister that he will not take her to his house until her father
pays all the amount and golden chain else he will solemnize
another marriage. He also used to assault his sister. The
informant at many times tried to get his sister settle down in
her in-laws' house with the intervention of local village
Panchayat but to no avail, as Prabhat Kumar and his father
were telling that they will not take his sister in their house. A
year ago, father and uncle of appellant No.1 went to their
house and took his sister to their village - Salgi forcefully with
a threat that if they stop them from taking her to their house,
they will lodge a complaint. Thereafter all the in-laws' i.e.
husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, uncle, aunt, sister-in-
law, started humiliating her, abusing by filthy language and
tortured his sister and even did not allow her to talk with them.
He always attempted to pacify the matter. He got information
that his sister was burnt to death by her in-laws. On receiving
this information, he went with his family members and saw
that his sister was lying dead and her body was burnt.
5. On the basis of said fardbayan, Simaria P.S. Case
No.46 of 2014 was registered against the appellants for offence
under Section 304 B / 34 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet
bearing No.52 of 2014 dated 07.07.2014 was submitted
against the appellants for the said offences. Cognizance was
taken, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions,
where charges were framed under Section 304 (B) of IPC and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants.
6. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 08
witnesses were examined by the prosecution who are as
follows:-
i. P.W.-1 :- Nand Lal Saw
ii. P.W.-2 :- Sudama Singh
iii. P.W.-3 :- Nagendra Kumar Singh
iv. P.W.-4 :- Jitendra Kumar Singh
v. P.W.-5 :- Jagadish Singh
vi. P.W.-6 :- Dr. Sanjay Kumar Siddharth
vii. P.W.-7 :- Ashok Ram
viii. P.W.-8 :- Anjani Kumar
7. P.W.-1 namely Nand Lal Saw stated that he heard
that the deceased got burnt while cooking.
In his cross-examination, he stated that there was
no demand from the side of the accused nor there was any
quarrel or fight between the deceased and the accused.
P.W.-2 namely Sudama Singh, is the father of the
deceased. He stated that her daughter went to her matrimonial
home after marriage. After ten days he took her daughter to
his home whereafter uncle and father of the appellant No.1,
came there to take her back. Sudama Singh told that he will
only perform his daughter's vidaai if her husband comes to take
her, to which they replied that they will not perform vidaai of
his daughter until they do not fulfil their demand of Rs.4 lac
and a golden chain either they will solemnize marriage of their
son to some another girl. Because of this threat he performed
vidaai of his daughter. When his daughter went to her
matrimonial home, her in-laws started demanding dowry, which
he cannot fulfil. Thereafter her in-laws hatched a conspiracy
and killed his daughter by assaulting and burning her. In his
cross-examination, he stated that he never made a complaint
regarding demand of dowry by his son-in-law.
P.W.-3 namely Nagendra Kumar Singh, who is the
brother of the deceased, stated that his sister went to her
matrimonial home after her marriage and after ten days she
came back to her naihar. Thereafter, when his sister went to
her in-laws' house, she was subjected to assault due to non-
fulfilment of demand of dowry. After one year in-laws of his
sister killed her by burning her.
P.W.-4 Jitendra Kumar Singh, is the informant of this
case. He stated that his sister lived for about ten days in her
in-laws' house and thereafter she came back to her paternal
home and stayed there for three years. Then he along with his
family members tried to settle his sister in her in-laws' house
with the intervention of local village Panchayat, but in vain, as
Prabhat Kumar and his father were telling that they will not
take his sister in their house. One year ago, father and uncle of
appellant No.1 went to their house and took his sister to their
village - Salgi forcefully with a threat that if they stop them
from taking her to their house, they will lodge a complaint.
Thereafter all the in-laws' started humiliating his sister and
abused her with filthy language and tortured her. They even
stopped her from talking with them. He always used to make
an attempt to pacify the matter. One Akhilesh Pandey and
Janeshwar Pandey tried to solemnize second marriage by
hatching conspiracy. On the date of incident, he got information
that on the last night his sister was burnt to death by her in-
laws. On receiving this information, he went with his family
members and saw that his sister was lying dead and there was
sign of assault and body was totally burnt.
P.W.-5 namely Jagadish Singh, has proved his
signature in the inquest report which was marked as Ext.2/1.
P.W.-6 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Siddharth, who has
conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased, found
following ante-mortem injuries:-
(1) deep burn injuries of all different sizes, shapes noted
blebs and ulcers. On dissection, he found inflammation
and burns shoot noted inside in lungs. Few inflammation
and few petechial noted in lungs, heart, chamber filled
with blood and great vessels also filled with blood. In
stomach, food matters partially digested, in small
intestine digested food material found. In large intestine
faecal mater and gas was found. Urinary bladder semi-
filled. Death occurred due to cardio respiratory arrest.
P.W.-7 Ashok Ram stated that he was posted as
Police Station In-Charge at Simariya Police Station. He stated
that after investigating the matter, they sent Prabhat Kumar
and Sushila Devi to jail. He has recorded statement of the
witnesses. After investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet
against the appellants.
P.W.-8 namely Anjani Kumar, who was posted at
Simariya Police Station was the Investigating Officer of this
case. He proved the Ext.4 which is formal F.I.R. He also proved
the signature of the inquest report which was marked as Ext.5,
and signature on the fardbayan which was marked as Ext.5/1.
He has recorded the restatement of the informant and taken
statement of some witnesses.
8. The prosecution had exhibited several documents,
which are as hereunder:-
i. Ext.1 :- Signature of Jitendra Singh on fardbayan
ii. Ext.2 :- Signature of Jitendra Singh on Inquest
Report.
iii. Ext.2/1 :- Signature of Jagadish Singh on Inquest
Report.
iv. Ext.3 :- memo of post-mortem.
v. Ext.4 :- formal F.I.R.
vi. Ext.5 :- inquest report
vii. Ext.5/1 :- endorsement on fardbayan
viii. Ext.6 : Fardbayan of Jitendra Kumar
9. On behalf of defence, one witness namely Vijay
Kumar Yogyani has been examined and one document relating
to first aid treatment of the deceased was marked as Ext.A.
10. After recording statement of the appellants under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing both the parties, the Trial
Court considering the evidence before him convicted the
appellants under Sections 304B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and sentenced them as aforesaid.
11. In this case the appellants have been convicted for
committing offence punishable under Section 304B of the
Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
12. It is well settled that to convict an accused under
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to
prove the three ingredients, which are as follows:-
i. "The death caused by burn or bodily injury or
occurs otherwise then under normal circumstance.
ii. Death occurred within seven years of her
marriage.
iii. It has been shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband in
connection with any demand for dowry."
13. All these conditions must simultaneously exist to
make the offence punishable under section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code. Only if these three ingredients are established by
the prosecution then only the appellants have to prove their
innocence in terms of section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
All the three ingredients have to be established simultaneously.
Absence of any of them is fatal for the prosecution. If the
prosecution fails to establish any one of them, the reverse
burden under section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be
applied.
14. In this context, we may also refer to section 113B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The said provision reads as
follows:-
"113B - Presumption as to dowry death:- When
the question is whether a person has
committed the dowry death of a woman and it
is shown that soon before her death such
woman had been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall
presume that such person had caused the
dowry death.
Explanation - For the purposes of this section
„dowry death‟ shall have the same meaning as
in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860)."
15. Considering the proposition of the law, I have gone
through the evidence. From the evidence, I find that the
prosecution has been able to prove that the death has occurred
within seven years of marriage and the deceased died due to
burn injuries. Thus two of the ingredients have been
established.
16. P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 in their evidence stated
that there was demand for dowry and the deceased was
subjected to assault. Thus the demand of dowry has been
proved by the evidence. But, while I go through the entire
evidence of these witnesses, I could not find any material to
suggest that soon before death deceased was tortured and
there was demand soon before death. In absence of evidence
that soon before death demand of dowry was made, I come to
a conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove
one of the ingredients necessary to convict the appellant under
section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, by giving benefit
of doubt, I acquit the appellants for committing the offence
under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
17. As held earlier the evidence suggests there was
demand for dowry though not "soon before death". When there
is demand for dowry, I find that conviction under Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act has been proved and established.
Thus, conviction of the appellants under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act is sustained. Their sentence of one year each for
conviction under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is
upheld. Since all the appellants have served the sentence no
order need to be passed.
18. Thus, the judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2016
and order of sentence dated 21.09.2016, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra, in S.T. No.177 of 2014,
stands modified accordingly.
19. Thus, this appeal stands partly allowed with
modification in the findings and sentence.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
I agree: Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Dated:- 25/10/2024
AFR / Prashant
