High Court allowed appeal against conviction under Section 304-B IPC. Court held essential ingredients of dowry death were not made out as there was no proof of dowry demand or cruelty soon before death. AP acquitted on benefit of doubt.
Appellant acquitted of charge under Section 304-B IPC; conviction and sentence set aside; released from jail.
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.
Page 1 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 20 18
[Arising out of judgment dated 07.09.2018, passed in Sessions Case No.541 of 2011 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Roshan Gupta), by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)]
Roshan Gupta, Son of Salirgram Gupta, aged about 26 years, Resident of Ward No.8, Ramanujganj, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Judgment on Board (14.06.2024)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
(1) This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of CrPC at the instance of the accused-appellant herein is questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2018, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) in Sessions Case No.541 of 2011, whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 304-B of
Page 2 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
IPC and sentenced for imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year.
(2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the appellant herein being the husband of Neeru Gupta, harassed her, tortured her mentally and physically and has also committed cruelty upon her for or in connection with demand of dowry, due to which, on 02.10.2011, between 10:15 PM to 11:45 PM, within seven years of her marriage, Neeru Gupta (herein after referred to as the “deceased”) committed suicide by hanging and, thereby, the appellant is said to have committed offence under Section 304-B of IPC.
(3) The further case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the deceased with the appellant was solemnized in the year 2007 and, pursuant to her suicidal death by hanging, marg intimation (Ex.P/01) was recorded by the police on 03.10.2011 at the instance of Vikas Gupta (PW-01) [brother of the appellant] and, thereafter, wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/02). Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/03 in presence of the father and sister of the deceased. FIR (Ex.P/09) was also registered by the police against the appellant and other coaccused persons [i.e. Vikas Gupta, Jitendra Gupta (brothers of
Page 3 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
the appellant) and Santeega Gupta, W/o Vikash Gupta]. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Snehlata Tirki (PW-14) and, as per PM report (Ex.P/07), it has been opined that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to hanging and nature of death is suicidal. Statements under Section 161 of CrPC of the witnesses, namely, Smt. Kunti Devi (PW-02) [mother of the deceased], Smt. Surekha Devi (PW-04) [sister of the deceased] and Ashok Kumar (PW-11) [brother-in-law (Jija) of the deceased) were recorded on 06.11.2011. The accused-appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/10. After due investigation, the accused-appellant herein was also charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence under Section 304-B of IPC in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
(4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents, whereas the appellant in support of his defence, though not examined any witness, but exhibited 03 documents.
(5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict
Page 4 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
the appellant for offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
(6) Mr. Neeraj Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. He also submits that though in the incident of deceased having committed suicide by hanging has occurred within seven years of her marriage, but other necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Section 304-B of IPC is not established at all in the present case and, therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the said charge and the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Ramaiah @ Rama v. State of Karnataka1 to bolster his submissions.
(7) Per-contra , learned State counsel would submit that prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that in view of
1 AIR 2014 SC 3388
Page 5 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
statements of prosecution witnesses coupled with other evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
(8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
(9) Before entering into the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to notice the charge framed by the learned trial Court against the appellant, which reads as under:
eSa jke dqekj frokjh vfr- l= U;k;kf/k’k jkekuqtxat ¼N-x-½ rqe jks’ku xqIrk firk lkfyd jke xqIrk ij fuEu vkjksi yxkrk gaw%&
1- rqeus erdk Jherh uhjk xqIrk dk ifr gksrs gq, uhjk xqIrk dks ngsr ds fy, 'kkjhfjd vkSj ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r dj mlds lkFk dzwjrk iw.kZ O;ogkj fd;k vkSj dzwjrk iw.kZ O;ogkj vkSj nq"izsj.kk ds dkj.k uhjk xqIrk us mlds fookg ds 07 o"kksZ ds vanj fnukad 02-102011 dks jkekuqxat esa jkf= esa vkRe&gR;k dj fy;k vkSj bl izdkj rqeus uhjk xqIrk dh ngst eR;qdkfjr fd;k gS\
tks /kkjk 304ch Hkk-n-la- ds varxZr n.Muh; vijk/k gS rFkk bl U;k;ky; ds laKku ds varxZr gSA
vkSj blds }kjk eSa funsZ’k nsrk gwa fd mDr vkjksi ij bl U;k;ky; }kjk rqEgkjk fopkj.k fd;k tk;sA”
(10) In order to consider the plea, raised at the Bar it would be appropriate to extract relevant provisions of Section 304-B of
Page 6 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
the IPC which relates to dowry death:-
“ 304-B. 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 be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.-For the purposes 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.”
The above provision was inserted by Act 43 of 1986 and came into force w.e.f. 19.11.1986.
(11) In order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, the following essentials must be satisfied-
Page 7 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
connection with demand for dowry.
Thus, if the aforesaid ingredients are established by the prosecution by leading appropriate reliable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and the court shall presume and it shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved by the accused.
(12) Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks about presumption as to dowry death which reads as under:-
" 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 has 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)."
The aforesaid provision shows that if the women has been subjected to cruelty as defined in Section 498-A IPC, the court may presume that such person has caused dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides as under:-
2. Definition of "dowry". In this Act," dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-
a. by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
b. by the parents of either party to a marriage or by
Page 8 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
a other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or after the marriage us consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
(13) To attract the provisions of Section 304B, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty or harassment "for, or in connection with the demand for dowry". The expression "soon before her death" used in Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test.
(14) As regards the principles concerning the above-referred provisions this Court wishes to refer to the decisions reported in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao2 , Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N.3 , Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan4 and Ashok 5 . Kumar v. State of Haryana
(15) In K. Prema S. Rao (supra) it has been held as under:-
“16. … To attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that 'soon before her death' she was subjected to cruelty and harassment
2 (2003) 1 SCC 217
3 (2004) 9 SCC 157
4 (2007) 14 SCC 176
5 (2010) 12 SCC 350
Page 9 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
'in connection with the demand for dowry'.”
(16) In Kaliyaperumal (supra) relevant portion reads as under:-
“5. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led in by the prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straightjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to the expression 'soon before' used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief who has
Page 10 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the women concerned, it would be of no consequence.”
(17) In Devi Lal (supra) the ingredients of the provisions of Section 304-B as laid down in Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab6 and Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar7 have been
reiterated as under:-
“20. The question, as to what are the ingredients of the provisions of Section 304-B of the Penal Code is no longer res integra. They are: (i) that the death of woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which which were not normal; (2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage; (3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before death.”
(18) In Ashok Kumar (supra) it has been held by the Apex
6 (2006) 1 SCC 463
7 (2006) 10 SCC 115
Page 11 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
Court as under:-
“19. We have already referred to the provisions of Section 304-B of the Code and the most significant expression used in the section is 'soon before her death'. In our view, the expression 'soon before her death' cannot be given a restricted or a narrower meaning. They must be understood in their plain language and with reference to their meaning in common parlance. These are the provisions relating to human behaviour and, therefore, cannot be given such a narrower meaning, which would defeat the very purpose of the provisions of the Act. Of course, these are penal provisions and must receive strict construction. But, even the rule of strict construction requires that the provisions have to be read in conjunction with other relevant provisions and scheme of the Act. Further, the interpretation given should be one which would avoid absurd results on the one hand and would further the object and cause of the law so enacted on the other.
(19) Similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in Yashoda
v. State of M.P.8 , where it is stated that determination of the period would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. However, the expression would normally imply that there has to be reasonable time gap between the cruelty inflicted and the death in question. If this is so, the legislature in its wisdom would have specified any period which would attract the provisions of this section. However, there must be existence of proximate link between the acts of cruelty along with the
8 (2004) 3 SCC 98
Page 12 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
demand of dowry and the death of the victim. For want of any specific period, the concept of reasonable period would be applicable. Thus, the cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry should not be so ancient, whereafter, the couple and the family members have lived happily and that it would result in abuse of the said protection. Such demand or harassment may not strictly and squarely fall within the scope of these provisions unless definite evidence was led to show to the contrary. These matters, of course, will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of a given case.
(20) In the matter of Appasaheb and another v. State of Maharashtra9 it has been held by the Apex Court as under:-
“9. Two essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, apart from others, are (i) death of woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, and (ii) woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for “dowry”. The explanation appended to sub section (1) of Section 304-B IPC says that “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
9 (2007) 9 SCC 721
Page 13 of 21 IN
Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Page 14 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.”
(21) The word "soon before her death", no definite period has been prescribed and the expression "soon before her death" has not been defined either in IPC or Evidence Act.
(22) The Supreme Court in case of Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra10 while considering the word "soon before her death", it has been held that term of the period which can come within the term "soon before her death" is to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question and there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. It has been further held that if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
(23) Keeping the above-stated principle in mind, we shall now proceed to consider the evidence led by the prosecution in the 10 2012 (11) SCC 397
Page 15 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
instant case qua whether ingredients for offence under Section 304-B of IPC is made out or not?
(24) Admittedly, the marriage of the deceased with the appellant was solemnized in the year 2007 and the date of incident whereby the deceased committed suicide by hanging is 02.10.2011, i.e. within seven years of her marriage. Furthermore, as per PM report (Ex.P/07) of the deceased, the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging and same is suicidal in nature, which is duly proved by Dr. Snehlata Tirki (PW-14), who has conducted the postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased. As such, the two primary ingredients to constitute offence under Section 304B of IPC i.e. (i) death of the deceased under abnormal circumstance and (ii) death has occurred within seven years of her marriage are quite established in the present case.
(25) Now, the spinal issue is as to whether the remaining ingredients to constitute offence under Section 304-B of IPC, i.e. soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband (appellant) and said cruelty and harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry, are established in the instant case or not?
(26) In order to answer this issue, it would be relevant her to notice few facts in the case at hand: (i) the inquest proceedings were conducted on 03.10.2011 vide Ex.P/03 in presence of Smt.
Page 16 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
Surekha Devi (PW-04) [sister of the deceased] and Ramprasad Saw (PW-03) [father of the deceased], wherein it is alleged that as the deceased has brought less dowry in her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws, due to which, she committed suicide by hanging, however, when Ramprasad Saw (PW-03) [father of the deceased] participated in the funeral of the deceased, he did not raise any objection; (ii) after merg inquiry vide Ex.P/01, the FIR (Ex.P/09) was registered on 05.10.2011 against the appellant and other co-accused persons [i.e. Vikas Gupta, Jitendra Gupta (brothers of the appellant) and Santeega Gupta, W/o Vikash Gupta] and, thereafter, the appellant herein (husband of the deceased) was the only person who was charge-sheeted in the present crime and (iii) statements under Section 161 of CrPC of the witnesses, namely, Smt. Kunti Devi (PW-02) [mother of the deceased], Smt. Surekha Devi (PW-04) [sister of the deceased] and Ashok Kumar (PW-11) [brother-in-law (Jija) of the deceased) were recorded on 06.11.2011, i.e. after 01 month from the date of incident, in which they implicated the appellant herein to be the author of the crime.
(27) Furthermore, a careful perusal of the statement of Smt. Kunti Devi (PW-02) [mother of the deceased] would show that she has stated before the Court that after one year of the marriage of
Page 17 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
the deceased, the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was cordial, but thereafter, the appellant (husband) and other family members (who have not been charge-sheeted) started demanding dowry from the deceased and also used to commit cruelty upon her for the said purpose, pursuant to which, they have given gold articles and Rs.1,85,000/- to the appellant and his family members. However, during cross-examination, Smt. Kunti Devi (PW-02) stated that she could not tell the date on which the said amount (Rs.1,85,000/-) was given to the appellant. As such, the aforesaid statement/allegation of Smt. Kunti Devi (PW-02) about giving Rs.1,85,000/- to the appellant is absolutely vague and cannot be relied upon. Further, Smt. Kunti Devi (PW-02) has also admitted in Para-06 of her crossexamination that in their village, as many as 200 families of their community used to reside, but they did not inform about the cruelty and harassment committed by the appellant on her daughter (deceased) to anyone of them. Similarly, Ramprasad (PW-03) [father of the deceased] has also reiterated the statement made by his wife- Smt. Kunti Devi (PW-02) and in addition to that he has also stated that the appellant had demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from him for his business (shop) purpose and, out of which, he has given Rs.1,80,000/- to him. Ramprasad (PW-03) has also stated that the appellant has also demanded
Page 18 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
Rs.4,00,000/- for purchasing four-wheeler. Furthermore, Smt. Surekha Devi (PW-04) [sister of the deceased] had also stated that the appellant had demanded Rs.4,00,000/- for purchasing Bolero (four-wheeler). However, independent witness- Amit Kumar Jaiswal (PW-09) has stated before the Court that the appellant has already owned four-wheeler and two-wheeler and he is not short of money to purchase the same. Similarly, Pankaj Keshari (PW-10), who is also an independent witness examined on behalf of the prosecution, has clearly stated before the Court that the appellant belongs to a reputed family of Ramanujganj, he is a rich person and, prior to his marriage, he already owned fourwheeler and two-wheeler. As such, the aforesaid statements/allegations made by the family members of the deceased against the appellant appear to be just an afterthought and, more particularly, when as per the statement of Ramprasad (PW-03) itself, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was demanded by the appellant for his business (shop) purpose in order to purchase some article, which cannot be said to be demand of dowry.
(28) The Supreme Court in the matter of Appasaheb (supra) has clearly held that demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for making some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
Page 19 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
The evidence adduced by the prosecution must show that the demand for 'dowry' should be in consonance with its definition as provided under Section 02 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and it must be in connection with the marriage. As such, it cannot be held that the aforesaid demand of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the appellant from the father of the deceased- Ramprasad (PW03) was for or in connection with dowry or same is related with the marriage of the deceased. Consequently, one of the essential ingredient for constituting offence under Section 304B of IPC i.e. the deceased was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry is clearly not made out in the present case. So far as another essential ingredient i.e. soon before the death, the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment is concerned, it has been stated by the mother of the deceased, namely, Smt. Kunti Devi (PW-02) that after one year of the marriage of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment, but they have not made any complaint in that regard before the police or before any other person belonging to their community and, all of a sudden, after having participated in the funeral that too without having any objection and after one month from the death of the deceased, allegations of cruelty and demand of
Page 20 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
dowry were levelled against the appellant and his other family members and, out of whom, the appellant being the husband of the deceased was the only person who has been chargesheeted in the matter. As such, apart from two ingredients, i.e. the death of the deceased was under abnormal circumstance and within seven years from the date of her marriage, other necessary ingredients as culled out in Para-11 of this judgment, are completely lacking/missing. There is no evidence available on record to show that at any point of time, the appellant had demanded dowry or had committed cruelty and harassment upon the deceased for or in connection with the same soon before her death. We hereby hold accordingly.
(29) In view of foregoing analysis, we are unable to hold that the appellant is the author of the crime and, therefore, he is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 304-B of IPC as well as sentence of imprisonment for life, awarded to him by the learned trial Court, is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the said charge on the basis of benefit of doubt. He is reported to be in jail, therefore, we direct that he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter/crime.
(30) Consequently, this criminal appeal is allowed . No cost.
Page 21 of 21 IN Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018
(31) Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for necessary information and action.
Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Judge
s@if
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are made out given the lack of dowry demand evidence.
Whether cruelty and harassment were committed soon before the death in connection with dowry.
Whether the demand for money for business and vehicle purchases constitutes dowry demand under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramaiah @ Rama v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶27
(2003) 1 SCC 217 · Who else cites this
Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N.Explained¶64
(2004) 9 SCC 157 · Who else cites this
Devi Lal v. State of RajasthanExplained¶64
(2007) 14 SCC 176 · Who else cites this
Ashok Kumar v. State of HaryanaExplained¶64
(2010) 12 SCC 350 · Who else cites this
Harjit Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶77
(2006) 1 SCC 463 · Who else cites this
Ram Badan Sharma v. State of BiharReferred¶77
(2006) 10 SCC 115 · Who else cites this
Yashoda v. State of M.P.Explained¶85
(2004) 3 SCC 98 · Who else cites this
Appasaheb and another v. State of MaharashtraExplained¶90
(2007) 9 SCC 721 · Who else cites this
Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh v. State of MaharashtraExplained¶102
2012 (11) SCC 397 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Roshan Gupta
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Sanjay S. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
