Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Dowry death – Persistent harassment and dowry demand – Accused-appellant was married to victim-deceased – Complainant-father of deceased gave dowry to appellant and his family but they remained dissatisfied and started subjecting deceased to harassment, taunts, and physical abuse – Panchayat meeting was called where appellant demanded certain sum from family of deceased – Deceased, on the day of the incident, had informed that she apprehended danger to her life – Thereafter, complainant received call that his daughter has died – Upon reaching matrimonial home, family of deceased learnt that she had jumped down from the roof of the house and ended her life – Appellant and his parents were charged u/s.304-B r/w. s.34 of IPC – Trial court convicted the appellant but acquitted his parents – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant – Whether the conviction of the accusedappellant require interference: Held: No interference required – Two defences taken by accused, which are totally divergent are that deceased accidently fell down from the terrace and received injuries, or that deceased committed suicide by jumping from the terrace as she was perturbed because of the knee issue which was plaguing her – Explanation offered by defence that deceased fell down from the terrace or that she committed suicide by jumping off from the terrace is totally a figment of imagination unsubstantiated by evidence on record – Period between marriage and her death by severe traumatic injuries is just a year and four months – There are consistent evidence from testimonies of material prosecution witnesses that deceased was continuously harassed by the appellant and his relatives on account of demand of dowry – Deceased being a young woman of 30 years could not have been so perturbed by the knee issue that the resolution would require a panchayat meeting – Version of prosecution witnesses that panchayat was held to discuss issues of demand of dowry and the maltreatment being meted out to deceased is the only acceptable theory – Plea taken by defence that deceased was so perturbed by her knee issues that she ended her life by jumping from the terrace is absolutely flimsy and unbelievable – Rather this is nothing, but a fictional story created by appellant as an afterthought to escape conviction – Appellant must have shifted the dead body to mislead the investigation – Trial court as well as High Court have distinguished the case of the acquitted accused persons from that of the appellant by assigning cogent reasons – Appellant, being the husband of deceased, was under a greater obligation, both moral as well as legal, to ensure the well-being of his wife, but he failed to do so – He was primarily responsible for demands of money being made from deceased and her maternal family members – All the ingredients required to prove offence punishable u/s.304-B of IPC against the appellant are made out from the evidence on record – Impugned judgments and orders do not suffer from any infirmity. [Paras 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.296 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.332 – Evidence of formal character received on affidavit – Approach of trial court, if flawed: Held: There is an apparent flaw in the approach of the trial Court inasmuch as, neither the number and nature of injuries were elaborated by the medical officer in his testimony, nor did he give any specific opinion regarding the cause of death – If the Public Prosecutor was negligent in performing his duties, the presiding officer of the trial court should have remained vigilant and court questions should have been put to the medical officer regarding the number and nature of injuries caused to deceased and to seek a clear opinion regarding cause of death – Approach of the trial Court in accepting testimony of the Medical Officer on affidavit, is contrary to the mandate of s.296 of CrPC (corresponding s.332 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) which provides that only evidence of formal character may be received on an affidavit – Defence did not take any objection to the mode of recording evidence adopted by the presiding officer – Omission on the part of the presiding officer tantamounts to a curable irregularity because no prejudice was caused to appellant by following such course of action. [Paras 22, 25, 26]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.