Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/355/2022 on 17 February, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
IA No. 1 of 2022
In
CRLA No.355 of 2022
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Advocate, for the
appellant.
Mr. Atul Kumar Shah, Deputy A.G., with
Mrs. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State of
Uttarakhand.
The appellant is a convict, for his alleged
involvement in the commission of the offences
under Sections 304B and 498-A of the IPC. As a
consequence of the conclusion of the trial of
Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2018, State Vs.
Mammohan Joshi, the appellant has been directed
to undergo a sentence of seven years for the offence
under Section 304-B of the IPC and three years for
the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for
the appellant, that if statement of PW2 Smt. Leela
Devi, as it has been referred to in para 18 of the
judgment, is taken into consideration, it cannot be
said, that the alleged story of demand of dowry was
immediately before the ill-fated incident, which was
subject matter of trial. The statement as recorded
therein of PW2, i.e. Smt. Leela Devi, who was the
mother of the deceased, she has specifically made a
statement, that immediately after the marriage,
there have been consistent demand made by the
present appellant for dowry and, particularly, he has
raised a demand, that he should be provided with
the four-wheeler, and due to which, he used to
physically assault the deceased, and exercise all
possible atrocities upon her.
The learned counsel for the appellant argues
that the said set of allegation of statement recorded
by PW2, may not be construed as to be a demand
"soon before the incident", and in that context, he
had made reference to a judgment as reported in
(2015) 6 SCC 477, Rajinder Singh Vs. State of
Punjab.
In fact, this judgment, rather lays down to the
contrary, that in the light of the observation, which
has been made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para
24 and 25 of the said judgment, which is extracted
hereunder, it has interpreted, as to what implication
the word "soon" will have with regard to the
provisions, which has been used under Section 304-
B of the IPC, which has to be read in consonance to
the provisions contained under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act. Para 24 and 25 are extracted
hereunder :-
24. We endorse what has been said by these two
decisions. Days or months are not what is to be seen. What
must be borne in mind is that the word "soon" does not
mean "immediate". A fair and pragmatic construction
keeping in mind the great social evil that has led to the
enactment of Section 304B would make it clear that the
expression is a relative expression. Time lags may differ
from case to case. All that is necessary is that the demand
for dowry should not be stale but should be the continuing
cause for the death of the married woman under Section
304B.
25. At this stage, it is important to notice a recent
judgment of this Court in Dinesh v. State of Haryana, 2014
(5) SCALE 641 in which the law was stated thus:
"The expression "soon before" is a relative term as
held by this Court, which is required to be considered under
the specific circumstances of each case and no straight
jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time of
allotment. It can be said that the term "soon before" is
synonyms with the term "immediately before". The
determination of the period which can come within term
"soon before" is left to be determined by courts depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each case."
We hasten to add that this is not a correct reflection
of the law. "Soon before" is not synonymous with
"immediately before".
The expression "soon", herein, would mean,
that it would be a continuous term of an act of
demand of dowry, and it cannot be read as to be
synonymous to a demand, which is immediate in its
precision before the incident.
Hence, in that eventuality, a very rational
interpretation has to be given, as to what would the
term "soon" before her death and how it is to be
interpreted to give a purposive implications.
On the contrary, the finding, which has been
recorded by the learned Trial Court in para 41 of
the judgment, it has dealt with the statement of
PW2, on which, the reliance has been placed by the
learned counsel for the appellant, and while
considering the statement of PW2, the learned Trial
Court has observed, that if a logical interpretation is
given to the statement of PW2, in relation to the
demand of four-wheeler, in fact, it was observed,
that immediately a day before her death, the said
demand was raised, and accordingly, the conclusion
was arrived at by the learned Trial Court, that it was
a demand, which was soon before the incident.
Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellant is not acceptable by this Court,
with regard to the stage of demand, and this Court
is of the view, that the demand will be a continuous
action. It may not be interpreted in precision, that it
has had to be in close proximity of the incident,
which has chanced resulting into attraction of
Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC.
In that eventuality, and looking to the gravity
of the offence, I am not inclined to release the
appellant on bail.
The Bail Application is accordingly rejected.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 17.02.2023
Shiv
