High Court acquitted appellants of charges under Sections 304B and 306 IPC. The Court held that prosecution failed to establish proximate link between dowry demand, harassment, and suicide of the deceased within seven years of marriage.
Appellants acquitted of charges. Impugned order set aside.
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.
HEGH CE3L3RT 9F CHHR‘TTISGJEaFRH $§T $§LR$PUR W $8:Hmi’we Mr,'§‘.P.§harmai-JJ
grimina§ Agmeal Nan 43% 0f 2%6
Manmaéihuram Vishwas and others
VERSUS
NK‘JN APPUQANT M S'taée 9f Chha’riisgafh
JUDQMENT &E PQSTED FOR PRQNOUNGEMENT 5W €~2§3QE§ K (f Sd/‘ T.P.Sharma ‘ “ JudgeN "
I WH CQQRT 0g S‘JLAT?§$$ARH RT §§k§a§§wie3
§$§3 Lb)“ ia M* r” Immmwia'
Cr§m'ma§ Am3ea§ N9. $59 9f 29%
| APPELLAMTéE | x“ | M imuvl V§s sx ageJ h .a acciicn — cuiv a “haa wa um ij |
S om glo 0 ation {Retdh yzww; m xl |
wwn wars ea ’w Tc’e |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RIG vmage Chakradhamagar, \ 'pr u.3.’ w |
Bami’a DIS‘Riat, . |
P. Raigarh o |
||
| 2. | Sanjay Vishwas H- wshwas, ager" Occuwatian C Binora, RS. Ch¢£ Raigarh, CQ. |
S/o h mm about 28 vahu. R1 raékarhagaa |
huwm yams, wiiage 3i$irict |
|
| 3. VER$US |
Swt Malté Bu vishwas, ageé Occupaiicn Cattw Bkmm F’S Eha Raigarjw ““t") |
who [gamw , J. 3/ auci‘; F213 kradlizmagar |
am‘wam yeg‘ra; WW4? , Dim" |
|
| RE~ 0NBE?‘ |
3a? <3 Cbhcl‘ii Siaiicm Chamad Fiaga: CG, |
sgam ‘aug?: hamagar, |
F‘oliae ’ 2‘ |
ahuAsHsiw hm - m3 :oaeg‘ar‘t‘ 5m Kamnd a Ag Pamaé Lawyel mr thv came.
3R§§£W£x $E$TifW Ei'éim5 ‘SHE {:QEQE CUE
is dii’ectad amm" «he gudgmeni‘ 0f conviciion 51m: wder 3 f‘eate?ase a'aEec: 31.5.2S§::a passed by the Add§tiana% $e3s§onS mge mazgas’h, :i Ses-sicm HM \lo @GM20i35 xnhweby u V bx I ms JD( 'J 4.em; pun &ble under Sect? ~ 3043!?24 m‘ aml aemenced1. ’za umdey‘go rigcmus Empg'isc “maxi.it
is challemgc—aai 3i“: he g’awi ihat
me mm:§e“ !eamed trig! Smirk has ‘?n convictmg am} swiwamr the acwaedlameganE as memiw ea‘ absva.
'"osacu 1cm m :e*is tart awed S$haiwa$133 I” He WEe of abwscdlmpav lam No SawavVkahwas aw daugktax 3f .x 35‘. ’ame!£ a 3. She waa maimed ”:0 accugadXEweHam 33%;?” “a: ’9 ’1 2003 fx’fw Vary the R Ias 1i” ‘ u ‘io Ti e appeHamS usai;’ away ,5 109mm: e, ,1! ncspiia 9r geatwc m we nt she died. 1mm EA i ~4) was giver ox, {:3we Smffgcn House Qmza: PG? se EB’za’iior: . '3gaseaY cm ‘melt, mag V‘, i9 :hePa a ,iaquesL $- REX.1 ’3 2) WM ‘ . , ' v ’1 \ ar» Y: :c‘sarw‘ ” dme aeaa mdv e r. wamm ;(mrx Agrawai (“W ; VIEW J m a and as qua ta 3Q i ‘ywa Vbna snl‘e Led vide Ex. ; ;na’c§0n pmsence cf mnaiatifon (m'gamphespmmus)usedasingeciicisiewascan; € m ed Wde i'abort ex‘ P40. Therm "‘a amenta m*he wiresscg anda secacmy @W: sf the Coiie o umm’l Pmcealure Mia; recorded and after c;mn§31e’z%m ofé: ‘z uga‘on d”! g haeiwas"H d n trm e1 : fJudicia ‘n Mamst’a‘te F...3.: €3ia$3, Ragmm, M13 i'um c o a»
3‘ Sm”: AshiSh Sh;’§!z§4$tav& Cmmse§ fOr th-a &mmeilani3 arm SM Raw ha hyawN {‘oume1 for Lne lagaandemS :ne am we :sec’ the materi e. :w ls an receid §mk§ding thejiadgmem‘c impugmed. Q) C w seafameilam? Naz‘ and amusegix’apbe E in Eaw a’d fathei’ m iaw. H‘, argued thaw the eecueeu‘feppeiian‘is never subgected Biehekha to cruelty or harassed her fez' e‘WW aw we w e M,;py WW“”em. £§§er delivery she devebpee the prCbEem 0'? h‘reguler menetma§ eyez’e 5W3*he accusedlaweeamte'macie *h * Lmem. ?-e aguod he‘ere he ‘ted incicem rge’ihing hm time Nae ewer ye m QV t’ae caremv 0f seek n0? did they aaE any meeting my eex? w he pi'obkerr h eny, i ed
Qrx .ne of? mfg the impugned judgmeni of the we! sew”: is 03' iHe reboomew’ are (7r is} 1r (L“i ..3 {D f2. kp “.J Q) r—.«
Q15? («3:2 :J e6. “g mm ‘ ra daa mtin sevea years 0‘? he? mam‘iage and ’c’ne. evidence 9“ Iwaea 0" be pmgecuticn 3s s ff. :em i0 my] ve a I? “owixs; “7 11¢ i we 1 used/appeilants wafe subjeciing her i0smei'fyand harassed T9? dowry saon beforetheincidem 8. Fm pmvmg the sase of dcwwdeaththe presecutisn is requh‘ed m e$iabHsh the fo}%9wing ingredients:
Q. in ardei‘ to esiabhsh the compiicdyoftheaccused/appeliantsinthé crime in qw.—2stiom, éi‘xe mwecudon ha$ adduced wai a$ wa-H as: documentagy evidence. C andmwdma! (PW~3) is the faiha‘ 0f B§shakha me has staied that when h‘g dadgh er came fmm her mati'imonial house afte¥ some days of ihe marriage, she taid that eccesedlabpeimnt No2 demaa’ided neckiace of geld arid while she was ‘eaek, gemg he gave he? ihe same e€ter purchaemg fey Re. 5,50%? Th e cx e, gel when ehe came o his house} eheickihimthatherinn u §ews w 3 raressme he fox magma I V erd ‘no may 3e eed if tee srme is mt 'emughi ehe cauld mi: Eive im her matiimonia houee. Even when she was pregnani e apbeEants harassed eed tortured he}: wee 9) I.3 0 ' ’t. narrated he e . e cf eepeHdns ge her neL Once he wee. t J)I)( house of he p eeehtsl am when *r‘ed ‘10 meet hie deughtei', aecueediaeeeiiené Ne. rareed ‘i‘e demand far moiereysie aed TV. He ei se eeme ta knew abo b me rer‘iureus ahitede of the appeiianis towerde his deeg’m‘ r’mreL yevmeersowBarraqr Oh 30 8 4834 thefat? r r: iaw e‘i Biéhakha if) m e ta his house and when he eeked abom‘eeweii
(\
§
a ughter, he{:oid tha?Shewasa§2rightOz Mg ask d whey WES ciaughée?d§dm?acme;heism;that$hewouidcomesome0%herday. same wir ”1* aaout .4i Q m we BbarsfMme t3 m i irifermedma’ his daughter wass ovs 1G 15 mmu Yh e' FagLwmcame ‘1'; I 2W ”1 omgc‘ hm mat ifs daughterha$beer:iaken ’io hospital at Raigarh. Then ‘mu wife and eida¥ scn wgnt to Raigafh haspEtai where fathef m iaw a? Béshakha toid him that she was beéng treated. Tharezifter,$omedrivarin15mhogpita§Eoldhimihathi5daughtei’ hm bwl take'a tc ihe px aim 11 $1 room ar‘d racoad mg*0“w dr‘ver the «a’ihe appe§l%tskiiledhera f‘ admms ev‘ng“0amWMeh?waS gr paiEcestaiimfarEcdingthxareg-(art,weGaga!SahuandFakirSahucare to him amd thvea’temadhimnottoreporHhemaéier. 4m“). Sm?“ Du¥ari Bai {PW—4) is the mathez' Qf BEshakm. She has 'Ufwrted time sfainmont e1“ Her htiabgm 'xr0"" M Paadhan’PW—‘Q“as stcied iMiapgcigm§ Linea G ciemami TVandmotorcyglgaadBishakha dééd 1m the RaKShabamhan day, areranm Kumar {P\ ’5) ha$ wbsJar iv wpported ihé versien of Naa’otkam Pradhan (PW—5).Sm Sukh”9a (P ’Vv’W we fraud Jf .n hak‘na has s€a§ec§ma:Bi$hakhaacidher TLW we am ‘a is Lsed ta clemamj TVamd mc’mrcycie. 3ihaii (PsMJ) Md Smirk; 1 8v an {PW-8) ha‘v’e alw wpported the statawen’” 0f 1’1. Dr. Pawan Kumar Agrawaé (PW—2) who coraducied the poet moriem examinatmnonthebodye‘f 1 Eshakhe, hasstaierjthatthecauee of deeéh wasaephyym Aceodma toTr r od‘ of chemca!aw V323 of i =e vishr WeSe )f meleéhEom {oz‘ganephe Dhoroes; useé as nsech xd was eonfirmed.Thus it Es not disputedthatBiehekhediedenLmmm‘aT i deg: x suit or posenmg
&mk
{QA
- ;L {a Das (PW1) na * mart x '1 h:$crassexammam t ’z‘m‘t we yea?afterthemarr§agecfBishakha,herfaihe‘rhaa‘midMmabmztthe has demand bemg a‘ai$eci by the agpenan’ia. Chandra$hakha§' (WW3) ‘n oh 6 w”Ms crows examma’rlon mw‘ i the t'Eme o? m1 Led pkgrawr w+owavn¥m3aemed rwnage, u w appel! .5had rotdewandeadowry priori5 :he wcL % L Eiwe apgeliaate»weyehavisagTVam!moéorcydeeven ha’r 2k “fie “me af mamaae cfB:s"§:1‘"ae H o damcdthesuggeghm WM]Enqak a wa$ ii} andW31$underweatment0firregukarmemstma§ c in @Ewagraph90fmassexaminat'aonthégWiinessadmittedwe?on
i bx!“he qweLwmhedidnc odge sormng .0 “rawhé{iemanuQfcm“ a‘T-j' reigm'i'agaém’ithemHehasdeniedthewggwtimtnarhe ciid hrf pmvidé ‘1 g A "m ihe neEk 4c Whanmmfwr‘taaMufwe I: m“
“e amim- demarid of dawm; Swi he haSmtgtated 3‘1;a'i%memEX.Q4 Dmari Ea‘ai {Pwué} has admii‘ted En her c2'0$3 examina‘téo‘a Ex‘ 13-2 "m She {mice regarding recerded in, theP013ceam$ia€ec§thatshestaied ‘wut ‘n samewm?lecozcmd In hey skatamen‘i EX.3—2. a né afdmm‘, sf Bishakha has admiited in ha“ cross 3rd: Sukhm‘a’:§ {PW~6}mend ‘m
1:; e bsagimmgrainy
‘ exa‘mm a 1 that whewBishakhacametoherVmage Seasani she talc! her ghai ma afp {irate we“ C‘errvardmg TV amd hasaéseadmittedthatthepoiicereswded mc‘tmcydaBhikhari{PWJ) hi3 Statementbuthedemadthe§actthathetalc!thepo§i5e:haihissistea' He hasepeci§§cai§ymated as *eam and he did nc’rknowHows‘wmed ii’r‘i he harmed fine emh'e stew "ta the police that the apeenems EvxeennemCT‘a'r'dfwenemar\F‘W3) eet"r:a31dedciawlyEfremh§3sisiez‘ Le. father,motherandbrethera? Dulari Ba§ (PW—4andBhikhaé'i{F’W-? deceaseci3hishakhacame?Ledischaygedohihegiom‘zdihatiihey aa'e 'mkez’ested 'm theappeuants cieaeéy 3'e1as‘ed 1:9 ha am} are pi’osecmting
i7~
Em the EWSta’mt case Bishakha déed on the day of Rakhi :‘es‘tiva3 Md $he was not permitied to visit her parents’ muse to caebmte Rakhé. Bu? .9 appei!am kganmat‘zhuram himseif werxi L ithe house of the barems 0f he ckzeased and he Teid the fa'tiwer 0f the denea3ed ma? Eishakha would come Some ather day.
i4. This is e. case of dowry death and the accused/appellehts are husbamj End in—1aws 0" éhe deceased. Nwmaiw, bmther, fathei' am”; mother of ihe decea$ed do raot always make; mmrt reia‘t5ng t0 the haraasment 9r iortoure matted te her by the accused persens er take actim against them m ihe hepe“‘3a‘ some day the situation may §mprove am! imir :iaug‘nte‘r wougd Qead free life m her matrimonia! heme. Bu’i it gamer be said that the mother, father and brothey of ihe deceased have falseiy hweheaied 'the accused persons in ihe grime in cguestien w§th a vEeW to 'iean‘n them §essen. én we case the death the prasewtion is i'eqijikd to adduse éhe cogent and reiiabb evidence to esfabheh the feet that the husbehd or relatives 0f the husbahrj of the deeeased have estuatty demanded dowry and in comeetion with the same they tortut'ed J. :ahcl subjeeted he? te emetty. 1h the absence of any eahstentie! evidence at demand of dewry, havaesment 0r torture metted out to the deceased by the aeeueedfapheitehts the convition and sentehce against the appeiia‘nts fer the effence nunishebte with section 304-8 ofthe ihdian Pehei Cede is net sustainable.
r. xx
,g_-
9/9
Futi" ehanve nu p ”wed on the diwsmn u'“me MaevCow;m h ma‘i‘ger W ;.. g, L sf HiraEai ami ai§§ay$v. $1aie {fimemmam EL gEam 2 in wnia: i; has heen he c1 that there mus‘nbeexistemse0fa proximateandWe iink bew‘iéei‘: ihe effeci o: crueitv based on dawn! deL. Ad m rhe death camemed and if ihe aileged E5" idem 0f crueityis ¥emoieintimeandhas became siale emaugh hoé ta Q‘lswb mentai equiiibrium of he woman aomcemed, wouEd be of m) cansequence and in €he ab$eme a?“ any warge under seem“ 306ofthe 1P f e accused/aooaiamway0 meié guiity.Furtherre§iance is waned en i’ne deciSion on 4-Lhe Apexf f‘waurk in the mafier of gamw: 31" ”a y s“ a3§&s Krm a La Pa; rm v $taze m“ 8m in whith ii haS been heid i i £ customay darra d at éhe ‘c‘; e o, b1: h o chiid as pre iem‘. m the sociew is noi coveieci bv down! :u: he? rcilame is piaced or; the ziecismn of the Apex Court m the mafier of ‘i‘amiinaou 4 Kaiivaperumai and another v. $taie of in which it has beer} heid that prosecution is required io Show that demandwasmao‘e soon before her deaih butihe'reEamotbea$i1iaighic-3‘aoketforumuiaaoto whai wouid constitute“soonbeforedeath”. it ha$ to be determinedb he Court deroendmg uoontheta ts awd Circumstances oi each case
,c~ i
£6
f? ._
1?. m the case cf damestic vioience or haras$meni narma§$y km affecied person Le. daughter-3n-!aw does mi repark 02' in?m'm anycne about the haras$ment or toi'turcus attituda of her husband or NEWS it) other persons but as am! when she gets the Qpportum‘iy, she infems about it ta her pas’ents. The pafenée of the bride normaHy do not reame mmediaiew but wait f0? an opportune time, in the hope of amicable seitiement between‘che pai’iiesandtoavoidfurthe?oompiicationeWhioh may arise in fuiure. But when the matter becemes inteierabie thee the daughtet—in—taw or the affected tady diseiosesthetorturousattitude0ther husband and intaws, to the poiice,neighbourandether pereem{elated t0 her to get the dispute reeotvedwiththeirinterventieh. t8. 3h the instaht caee fatherin iew of thedeceaseddidriot permithet to go to her parents” housetoeeiebrateRakhitestivaiandontheeeme day she consumed the poison i.e. maiathion (organophoepheroue) eh thsecttcide and died in the house of the appettentsrTheappettentshave not dieciosed how she consumed poteon.Theyhaveonlyetatedthatshe was tinder treatment and tried toshowthatshedied because of her tit heattht Retatives of the deceasedi.e.mother‘fethetandbretherhavenet todged any report against the demand of dowry tatsed by the accusediappetiants before the death of the deceased“ From the merg intimation Ex. P-8 it appears that after consuming poisonshewastaken to hospitai Where she died. Chandra Shekhar (PW-3 ,DulariBat (WV-4 and Ethikhart (PWJ) §.e. father, mother and brother of deeeased Bhishakha have not offeredanyexplanationastowhytheydidnotteitthe pottoeatthefirsttnstanoeand it is after a lapse of2 yearstheysamewith the eiiegation of demand of dowry and harassment mettedtodeceased the appeiiants. AithroughthisisaeaseofdeathofbrideWithin14months of marriage, yet the oroseeutionisrequiredtoestebiishtheeasebeyond reasonabie doubt. Untess the prosecution is ebte to show that soon
.‘A/aw
beisre death, the rianeaSe Qi was swjécz‘éé to cma??y §n mnmction wi’ah demand of dowry, oniy enly i’ne ground of commissfan of suiche by he? wii’hin the Seven years of marriage pmsumption Cannot be dzawn that the appeilams had abe’ded or inStigated her for ¢ommifing sumide‘
1Q. m the absence of clinching and mmbie ev§denoe fegarding tho harossment or ”torture metied to the deceased m oomneciion with demand of dowry by tho apoeHants soon before doath, convitéon of éhe appe§3ants f0? ihe of§ence under section 3843/34 of the indian Pena! Code is not sustamabie in law. 2S. Leomed Mai Court has not appreciated iho evidence avai!ab§o so .veoord adduced by the prosecutioa regarding domaod of dowy and harassment b the a' IDolranta and; arrived at a wron'“a oonctueion by convicting and sentenctng the accusedfeppeHamts as mentiomed above.
2t. Corteequentiy, the appea! ie aitowed. trnpugrred judgmem is set aside. rkppetiants are aoquitted of the charge teveEed agairrst them. Aocusedreppettant Sanjay is stated to be in ' torthwrth. rfnot requrred. um any other case. r V Sd/_x r T. P. Sharma *5: Judge ‘
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved demand of dowry and harassment causing suicide of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the appellant is liable for abetment of suicide under Sections 306 of the IPC.
Whether the High Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused for dowry death.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harihar SinghFollowed¶38
Harihar Singh v. State of UP
Manu SharmaFollowed¶42
Manu Sharma v. State of MP
Ramalina h Karivaperumal and anotherFollowed¶42
Ramalina h Karivaperumal and another v. State
Manmathuram Vishwas and others
M S'htaé of Chharisgafh
Bishwas Vishwas
T. P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
