The revision against an acquittal in a dowry death case was dismissed. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the suicide note and lack of injury evidence showed no dowry demand or cruelty. The impugned judgment was affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AFR Reserved Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196141
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1062 of 1998
Revisionist :- K.K. Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravindra Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.K. Awasthy,M. Tiwary,V.C Tewary
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
2
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
husband for six months. She has been killed by injecting any intoxicating substance to her. The information regarding torture was also given by his daughter in the night of 14.01.1996 at 09:00 P.M. and had informed that accused Pankaj Sharma may kill her any time.
3
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
make way for remarriage. On 15.01.1996 one Dr. P.K. Shukla had informed on phone that Dr. Rachna Sharma has been killed. At the time of death the deceased was pregnant for eight months.
| 1 | K.K. Sharma, informant, | PW-1 |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Sudhakar Aashawadi | PW-2 |
| 3 | Constable Clerk Shiv Raj Singh | PW-3 |
| 4 | Smt. Reena Sharma | PW-4 |
| 5 | S.I. Prem Narayan Bohrey | PW-5 |
| 6 | Dr. Ramesh Chandra Awasthi | PW-6 |
| 7 | BrijBhushan Singh | PW-7 |
4
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
| 8 | S.I. R.P. Yadav | PW-8 |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | B.S. Gill, C.O Police | PW-9 |
| 1 | Written Complaint | Ex.Ka-1 |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Written Complaint | Ex.Ka-2 |
| 3 | Chik F.I.R. | Ex. Ka-3 |
| 4 | Carbon Copy Kaymi G.D. | Ex.Ka-4 |
| 5 | Carbon Copy Kaymi G.D. | Ex.Ka-5 |
| 6 | Memo | Ex.Ka-6 |
| 7 | Inquest | Ex.Ka-7 |
| 8 | Photo copy Nash | Ex.Ka-8 |
| 9 | Challan Nash | Ex.Ka-9 |
| 10 | Letter to R.I. | Ex.Ka-10 |
| 11 | Letter to C.M.O. | Ex.Ka-11 |
| 12 | Post Mortem Report | Ex.Ka-12 |
| 13 | Reports F.S.L. | Ex.Ka-13 & 14 |
| 14 | Site Plan | Ex.Ka-15 |
| 15 | Recovery Memo Syringe, injection etc. | Ex.Ka-16 |
| 16 | Charge-sheet | Ex.Ka-17 |
5
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
| 1 | Smt. Poonam Sharma, sister of the deceased-wife |
D.W.-1 |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Dr. M.L. Chauradia, Bokaro, Hospital, Bokaro, Steel Plant |
D.W-2 |
| 3 | Prakash Chandra Pathak, Handwriting Expert, F.S.L, Agra |
D.W.-3 |
| 4 | Dr. P.K. Shukla | D.W.-4 |
10. Documentary evidence - Ex.Kha-1 to Ex.Kha-12.
(i) During the course of trial, P.W.-1, K.K. Sharma, informant has supported the version of the prosecution. This witness has proved written complaint Ex.Ka-1 and Ex.Ka-2.
(ii) P.W.-2, Sudhakar Aashawadi has also deposed in favour of the prosecution that on the dictation of the informant, K.K. Sharma, he had written the complaint, Ex.Ka-1.
(iii) P.W.-3, Constable Clerk, Shiv Raj Singh has proved chik F.I.R., Ex.Ka-3, carbon copy kaymi G.D, Ex.Ka-4, carbon copy G.D. and Ex.Ka-5 to be in his own handwriting and signature. He has proved Ex.Ka-6 and report dated 15.01.1996 written by Constable Sakht Singh.
6
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
(iv) P.W.-4, Smt. Reena Sharma, elder sister of the deceased has deposed in favour of the prosecution.
(v) C.W.-1, Dr. T.N. Singh has deposed that the informant K.K. Sharma was the head of Chemistry Department, he had given Rs.50,000/- to the accused J.C. Sharma for opening of a clinic before him. This witness was subordinate to the informant.
(vi) P.W.-5, S.I, Prem Narayan Bohrey had conducted the inquest. This witness has proved the inquest report Ex.Ka6 and letters regarding post-mortem Ex.Ka-8 to Ex.Ka-11.
(vii) P.W.-6, Dr. Ramesh Chandra Awasthi had conducted post-mortem of the deceased and had found three injuries. According to this witness, injury nos.1 and 3 were not the injuries but these were the marks occurred during the course of treatment and injury no.2 which was 0.5 m.m. with ecchymosis on the left wrist, was the mark of pavulon injunction. This witness has also proved the post-mortem report Ex.Ka-12.
(viii). P.W.-7, Brij Bhan Singh, the then Senior Scientist, F.S.L, Agra, has proved F.S.L. reports Ex.Ka-13 and Ex.Ka-14.
(ix) P.W.-8, R.P. Yadav, S.S.I. was the first I.O. who has proved site plan Ex.Ka-15, recovery memo of stethoscope, needle and syringe.
7
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
(x) P.W.-9, B.S. Gill, C.O. City, the then I.O, has proved that on the basis of second complaint made by the informant, the case was converted into Section 304B I.P.C. from Section 302 I.P.C. through G.D. No.25 and he was deputed I.O. on 18.01.1996. This witness had recorded the statements of the witnesses and the accused persons. He had also received suicide note and the answer sheet of the deceased from Meerut University which were later on sent for expert opinion. This witness has proved the charge-sheet Ex.Ka-7 to be in his own handwriting and signature.
8
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
they found that Rachana Sharma was lying unconsicous. Dr. P.K. Shukla was called. The deceased was taken to Lokpriya hospital where she was treated but could not be saved. Dr. Pankaj had informed the informant on phone regarding critical condition of the deceased.
(i) D.W.-1, Poonam Sharma, sister of the accused Pankaj Sharam (nanad of the deceased) has deposed in favour of the defence that the deceased was never tortured for bringing more dowry, no money was demanded from her and her family members. Her in-laws were rich and were earning sufficient money, therefore, there was no need to make such demand. The deceased did not like her father as he used to come in drunken state and used to grab money from the deceased. This witness has proved Ex.Kha-3, the suicide note written by the deceased and also that the deceased had issued cheque of Rs.10,000/- in the name of her father. This witness has also proved answer sheet Ex.Kha-4 written by the deceased. This witness has also proved writing of paper nos.31Kha/1 to 31Kha/3 and letter no.33Kha to be in the handwriting of the deceased. This witness further deposed that she has been married in Aligarh with a C.A. and she used to visit her matrimonial home from time to time. This witness has also proved that after receiving the information of death of her Bhabhi, she had come to Meerut immediately.
9
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
(ii) D.W.-2, Dr. M.L. Chauradia has proved that accused Pankaj Sharma served in Bokaro Steel Plant Hospital as Senior Surgeon from 14.03.1989 to 10.01.1991. This witness has proved certificate Ex.Kha-5.
(iii) D.W.-3, Prakash Chandra Pathak, Handwriting Expert in F.S.L, Agra, has proved Ex.Kha-3 and Ex.Kha-4 and viscera report Ex.Kha-6 and Ex.Kha-7. This witness has also proved M.Ex.1 to M.Ex.37 which are the negative and photographs prepared by the handwriting expert. This witness has lastly concluded that the suicide note, Ex.Kha3 had been written by the deceased. This witness was cross examined by the prosecution but he had supported the statement of the examination in chief and the report produced by him and has not deviated from the version of examination in chief.
(iv) D.W.-4, Dr. P.K. Shukla was called by accused Dr. Pankaj Sharma, when the deceased was found to be unconscious in his house. This witness has deposed that at about 11:30, Dr. Pankaj had phoned him, he went to his house with his compounder where the deceased was in unconscious state and Dr. Pankaj was giving artificial breathing to her. She was taken to Lokpriya Hospital. Dr. Pankaj Sharma phoned to his relatives. When he had inspected the deceased first time, he found a mark of injection on her left wrist and had also seen one empty injection of pavulon. No other mark was found on the person of the deceased. In Lokpriya Hospital the deceased was treated by five more doctors in addition to him and
10
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
was injected at her breast and right hand. Glucose was intrafused. There was bleeding from the mark of injection of the left hand of the deceased upon which cotton was kept. This witness has proved treatment papers Ex.Kha-8 to Ex.Kha-12.
11
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has dismissed the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution. Since the death occurred within seven years of the marriage, therefore, the liability is of the accused to prove that the death was natural. The accused persons have failed in proving the same even then the trial Court has illegally acquitted the accused persons. The trial Court has considered the letters which were written by the deceased just few days after her marriage but has ignored the subsequent letters which prove the cruelty and demand of dowry and the same have not been considered, therefore, the revision be allowed and the order of judgment of acquittal be set aside and appropriate order be passed in the fact and circumstances of the case.
(i) Initially no F.I.R. was lodged regarding demand of dowry or torture for non-fulfilment of the said demand. On 15.01.1996 an F.I.R. under Section 302 I.P.C. had been lodged by the informant against the accused persons. Thereafter on 16.01.1996 another application was moved
12
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
by the informant containing the details of the dowry that the husband of the deceased was torturing her for six months but there is no iota of evidence to prove that the deceased was being tortured for six month prior to her death. If it was so, the deceased would have certainly informed the informant and her family members regarding the ill treatment by her in-laws. It is matter of concern that why allegation regarding information about the torture and demand of dowry is being taken one day before the incident.
(i.i) According to this Court, if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the accused were insisting to pay the car loan and were demanding Rs.1,00,000/- for opening clinic, it would not attract Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as such demand can not be said to be a demand of dowry. It is also noteworthy that the deceased was a renowned Anaesthetic, her husband accused Pankaj Sharma was a Senior Surgeon, her father-in-law, Jagdeesh Sharma was the Deputy Registrar in Meerut University and her mother-in-law, Smt. Jag Rani Sharma was a Lecturer. Thus the family was well to do by all means and there was no need to make such demand from the informant. It has also been proved from the letters sent by the deceased in early days of her marriage that she was very much happy with her husband and in-laws. It is also noteworthy that no letter or recording to prove the maltreatment could be produced by the prosecution.
13
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
(ii) It also appears an absurd allegation that the accused persons had given threat to the informant that if the demand is not fulfilled, the accused Pankaj would be remarried. According to this Court, the deceased was so intelligent and capable enough that no one would think of breaking such marriage tie. It has also not been proved that the deceased was of very simple physical appearance or had cruel behaviour towards the in-laws. Therefore, there was no occasion to leave such lady.
(iii) Photocopy of the phone call details made by the deceased till 14.07.1996 has been produced but the same has not been proved, therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence and in absence of such call records, it can not be said that the deceased had informed to her family members that she was being confined or maltreated by the accused persons. If the prosecution version is correct and the deceased was badly beaten on 14.07.1996 by the accused persons, some marks of injuries should have been found on the deceased in her inquest report or postmortem report but in absence of any such injury, it can not be said that prior to the incident, the deceased was maltreated or beaten by the accused persons for demand of dowry. It is also noteworthy that the call details show regular calls from both the sides and there was no call all of sudden to the informant regarding beating and maltreatment by the deceased. Though there is sorrow part of the incident that the deceased died having a foetus of 8 months.
14
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
(iv) From the F.S.L. report it has been established that the Pancuronium drug was found in the viscera report in the stomach, intestine, liver, spleen and kidney of the deceased but no poison was found in three distil bottle, in broken pavulon injection ampule and also on the stethoscope. It is proved that the deceased was admitted in Lokpriya Hospital, Meerut at 12:05 P.M. and died at about 12:50 P.M due to the impact of the pavulon injection.
(v) The letters produced from the side of defence destroy the prosecution version that any complaint letter was written by the deceased to the informant about the maltreatment by her in-laws, however, at the same time the letter Ex.Kha-2 written by the deceased to her elder sister Rani Sharma shows that she was happy in her inlaws house and her in-laws were looking after her well. At the same time she had also complained in writing about her father’s behaviour. She has written that what is the manner for a daughter with her father as such view point about her. Thus, the deceased had accused her father for the ill treatment and absurd behaviour and not to the accused persons.
(vi) Ex.Kha-3 is a suicide note which has been proved by D.W.-3, P.C. Pathak, expert of the F.S.L, Agra, that the alleged suicide note was reduced in writing by the deceased. The suicide note reads as follows:
“I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN DEATH.”
15
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
(vi.i) The learned trial Court has heavily relied on this letter and has concluded that since the deceased was Anaesthetic and was capable to take intravenous injection from her right hand on her left wrist, therefore, it was a case of suicide by free will and not a murder or dowry death committed by the accused persons.
(vi.ii) It is expedient to quote Section 32(1) and illustration no.(a) of the India Evidence Act, 1872:-
“ 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. —Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:—
(1) when it relates to cause of death. —When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.
Illustration
(a) The question is, whether A was murdered by B; or A dies of injuries received in a transaction in the course of which she was ravished. The question is, whether she was ravished by B; or The question is, whether A was killed by B under such circumstances that a suit would lie against B by A's widow. Statements made by A as to the cause of his or her death, referring respectively to the murder, the rape, and the actionable wrong under consideration, are relevant facts.”
16
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
(vi.iii) In Kusa Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1980 SC 559 , it has been held by the Apex Court that if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and is free from any effort to prompt the deceased to make a statement and is coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in founding the conviction on such a dying declaration even if there is no corroboration.
(vi.iv) In Kushal Rao Vs. State of Bobay, AIR 1958 SC 22 , it has been held that once the court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no question of further corroboration.
(vi.v) In this case the dying declaration is not in the oral form but it is in the written form as suicide note and by experts evidence it has been proved that the suicide note had been written by the deceased before her death. Hence, the alleged suicide note is relevant and is admissible in evidence and in absence of any contrary evidence, the same would be liable to be accepted. Thus, this Court is of the view that the trial court has not committed any error in accepting the suicide note written by the deceased.
(vi.vi) In State of Assam Vs. Ramen Dowarah, (2016) 3 SCC 19 (para-12) , it has been held that men may lie but the circumstances do not, is the cardinal principle of evaluation of evidence. Immediate conduct of
17
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
victim is also important in evaluating the evidence of the witness.
(vi.vii) In this case when the inquest was going on, the informant and her family members did not make any allegation against the accused persons and did not claim that it is a murder committed due to dowry. First of all, on 15.01.1996, the informant lodged an FIR under Section 302 IPC but later on changed the version and lodged another FIR next day i.e. 16.01.1996 under Section 304B IPC. At the same time the suicide note written by the deceased is also relevant in which she had written that she was responsible for her own death. Thus, from the above, it comes out that the conduct of the prosecution witness and the victim are not in connivance with each other both are contrary. The trial court has also considered this aspect and has recorded the acquittal thereafter.
(vii) Though the letter papers nos.31Kha/1 to 31Kha/3 have not been proved being photocopies as its original was with P.W.-4 Smt. Rani Sharma but the same has also not been denied by the prosecution or Rani Sharma thus it has been proved that the same had been written by the deceased to her elder sister in which she had praised her husband-accused Pankaj Sharma when she spent few days with him at Bokharo. Paper no.33Kha is also a letter by the deceased to her elder sister in which she has not written about any ill treatment, cruelty or demand of dowry by the accused persons. Thus, it could not be
18
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
proved beyond reasonable doubt that any demand of dowry was made by the accused persons or any offence has been committed by the accused persons with the deceased.
(viii) It has already been mentioned in the first written complaint/F.I.R. that the informant had not blamed the accused persons for making demand of dowry and causing mental or physical cruelty to the deceased. From the scrutiny of evidence it transpires that the witnesses had made several imaginary allegations in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
(viii.i) P.W.-8, I.O., R.P. Yadav was contradicted under Section 145 of the Evidence Act in which he accepted that he had recorded the statement of the informant on 15.01.1996 in which he had not made any statement regarding demand of dowry, he had also not stated that he had provided Rs.50,000/- to the accused persons. He had also not stated that the accused persons had demanded money for paying instalments of the Car. He had not stated that the accused persons had tortured the deceased for demand of dowry. The informant had not stated regarding any call by the deceased to him or anyone else of his family. The informant had also not stated that first of all O.P. Shukla had informed about the death of the deceased. He had not stated that he had given Rs.50,000/- to the accused persons before T.N. Singh, M.P. Singh and Mahesh Chandra Sharma. Mahesh has been examined as witness to the delivery of the
19
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
aforesaid money at Meerut . Though this witness admits that he had not taken finger prints from the syringe etc. which could have proved the impression of the accused persons or the deceased on it.
(viii.ii) Thus, from the above evidence of the I.O, P.W.-8, it has been established that later on, the informant and the witnesses created and concocted a story of demand of dowry and torture by the accused persons which could not be substantiated by their previous statements to the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
(ix) There is allegations from the side of the accused persons that the informant is a habitual drinker and he used to extract money from the deceased and when after the death of his daughter, her belongings were checked, an old cheque folio of Rs.10,000/- in the name of the informant by the deceased was found. P.W.-3, P.C. Pathak, had proved that the suicide note was written by the deceased in which the deceased has not blamed the accused persons for demand of dowry or any kind of torture by them. D.W.-1, Poonam Sharma, sister of accused Pankaj Sharma, has proved the defence version.
(x) The informant P.W.-1 admits that he had received Rs.10,000/ from the deceased but he explained it in the way that it was in lieu of the loan amount already paid by him to the accused persons. When demand of Rs.50,000/could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, it can not be said that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the
20
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
deceased as a payment against the alleged money lending.
(xi) It has already been discussed that P.W.-6, Dr. R.C. Pathak, who had conducted post-mortem of the deceased did not find any internal on external injury except three injuries out of which two were mark of injection and the injury no.1 was the mark of Pavuline Injection due to which the deceased died later on. It has been proved by D.W.-4 that the aforesaid two injuries had occurred during the course of treatment.
(xii) From the perusal of the evidence on record, it has been established that the in-laws of the deceased were rich and prosperous. They had their personal home and they were highly qualified and had status in the society. In such a situation it is unthinkable that they will make such demand of dowry or will torture such a brilliant and earning wife/daughter-in-law. She was a jwell to the inlaws family and no family would think to loose such a member.
“ 304B. Dowry death .—(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall
21
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”
22
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
“106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.”
11 SCC 268 , it has been held that it is trite that prosecution has to stand on its own legs and sufficient evidence should be produced to prove the allegation, no aid of Section 106 can be taken by the trial court. It was a case of custodial torture and death in which it has been held that when prosecution's own case, as set up in charge-sheet, in support of which evidence is given, does not prove the allegation of killing, no aid of Section 106 can be taken by the trial court.
23
Criminal Revision No.1062 of 1998 (K.K. Sharma Vs. State of UP and others)
it has been prove that except one injection spot on the left wrist of the deceased, no any other mark of injury was found. In this case the prosecution could not discharge its initial burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and contrary to that on the basis of suicide note it has been proved that the deceased had herself committed suicide for unknown reasons, therefore, the accused persons cannot be held guilty.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023 S.Verma/ Shahroz
(Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.)
Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for dowry death and related offences was perverse or required interference in revision.
Whether the prosecution discharged its initial burden to prove the ingredients of Section 304B IPC before the presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act could arise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kusa Vs. State of OrissaReferred¶92
AIR 1980 SC 559 · Who else cites this
Kushal Rao Vs. State of BombayReferred¶93
AIR 1958 SC 22 · Who else cites this
State of Assam Vs. Ramen DowarahReferred¶95
(2016) 3 SCC 19 (para-12) · Who else cites this
Kailash Chand Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶133
(2017) 11 SCC 268 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 3 enactments
K.K. Sharma
State of U.P.
Pankaj and others
Umesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
