Balak Ram Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

374 (2) of CrPC, 1973 assailing legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment dated 10/02/2005 passed by the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, CG in Sessions Trial No.311/2004 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years.

¶22

Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the deceased – Preeti @ Rambai was married to appellant No.1–Balak Ram in Jeth month. On 14/08/2004, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house in village – Darra. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry, therefore, she committed suicide. Upon FIR filed, investigation was set on motion and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the competent Court who made over the case to the Sessions Court and was received by the trial Court on transfer.

¶23

The appellants were charged for offence under Section 304-B of IPC alternatively Section 306 of IPC. They abjured guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. One defence witness was examined. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. They claimed innocence and false implication. On due appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced as stated in the 1^st paragraph of this judgment.

¶24

Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC have not been proved by the prosecution by adducing cogent and prudent evidence. He

¶25

3

¶26

submits that the learned trial Court committed an error of law and fact in placing reliance upon the statement of PW1–father of the deceased, PW3- sister of the deceased and PW7–mother of the deceased, PW8-brother of the deceased to hold that the deceased was subjected to demand of dowry soon before her death. He submits that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there was no demand of dowry soon before the death of Preeti. Reading from the statement of the witnesses, he submits that the allegation of demand of color TV is a significant omission in the police statement. He submits that the allegation is made in respect of giving a small anklet and from the evidence, it is gathered that the deceased herself was wearing that anklet without any complaint. The demand of color TV is also doubtful. As per the evidence on record, it appears that there is no regular electricity supply in the house of the appellants and therefore, such an allegation could be made as an afterthought as the parents and siblings were grudging against the appellants. Though the time gap between the marriage and the death of the deceased is less, but this ipso facto would not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. Therefore, he submits that conviction of the appellant is bad in law and deserves to be set aside by allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellants of all the charges against them. To bolster and buttress his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder and ors v. State of West Bengal, (2008) 1 SCC 202 and Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 724.

¶27

Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court on due appreciation of evidence on record

¶28

4

¶29

gave a categorical finding of conviction against the appellants which does not require any interference by this Court. She submits that the statement of PW1, PW3 and PW7 has been correctly relied upon by the learned trial Court and these witnesses have disclosed about harassment and cruelty meted out by the appellants in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. She submits that soon before death would not always mean immediately before her death. The provision has to be read with the proximity of the act done by the appellants which led to commission of suicide or unnatural death of the deceased. In the case in hand, PW1, PW3 and PW7 have categorically deposed against the appellants. Therefore, there is a proximity and live link between the demand and death. He submits that presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 would be attracted against the appellants. Therefore, she submits that the appeal sans merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶31

In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to quote Section 304-B of IPC -

¶32

“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 be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.”

¶33

In order to establish the guilt under Section 304-B of IPC following ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution:(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise

¶34

5

¶35

than under a normal circumstance.

¶36

(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.

¶37

(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.

¶38

(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.

¶39

(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. Please see Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2009) 16 SCC 35. (Emphasis supplied)

¶40

In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the deceased died an unnatural death, to be more precise she died within a period of 3 months of her marriage. Now, this Court is required to see whether the deceased committed suicide on account of cruelty or harassment meted out to her either by the accused/ appellant or her relatives and that the said cruelty or harassment was in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. In this context, it would be necessary to notice the provisions contained in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act which reads as under -

¶41

“ 113-B. Presumption as to dowry death . [Inserted by Act 43 of 1986, Section 12 (w.e.f. 1.5.1986).]- 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 had 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.

¶42

Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)].

¶43

The conviction of the appellants basically rests upon the statement of PW1, PW3, PW7 and PW8. Therefore, this Court is required to analyse the statement of

¶44

6

¶45

these witnesses with great care and caution to ascertain as to whether the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are made out to draw a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

¶46

Ramratan Sahu (PW1), father of the deceased in his deposition before the Court stated that his daughter deceased-Preeti Bai was married to appellant–Balak Ram in the month of Jeth and died by hanging on 14/08/2004 in her matrimonial home at village- Darra. He further deposed that after her marriage, his daughter had gone to her in-laws’ house and resided there for 15-16 days. Thereafter, he took his daughter to his home. Before him, the girl had informed her mother that the anklet given in the marriage was small and the T.V. given was black & white, therefore, the appellants are giving trouble to her and they are demanding T.V. He further deposed that the appellants use to beat his daughter. He deposed that he gave a big anklet to his daughter after selling ornaments of his wife and assured that T.V. would be given later. Thereafter, he dropped his daughter to her in-laws’ house along with Grahanlal, Ravi and one more relative and he came back. He stated that his daughter did not come back and she was continuously facing trouble, beating and sufferings. He further deposed that before eight days of her death, he had gone to her in-laws house to see her. She asked him to stay there for two days. When he asked the appellant No.1 to accompany him to see his ailing wife, he alone came and he did not allow his daughter to come to see her mother. Then the daughter started weeping and he assumed that she is weeping for not providing the color TV. Thereafter, he deposed that his daughter died after 8-10 days. He saw her hanging and stated that because of beating of the appellants, she committed suicide by hanging. Version in the examination-in-chief of this witness discloses that he was told by her daughter that she is suffering

¶47

7

¶48

because color TV was not provided and was subjected to beating also. This witness was cross-examined by the appellant in great detail. In para 14, he states that giving dowry is not prevalent in Sahu community and at the time of marriage, there were no talks between them with regard to dowry. Whatever he wanted to give was given and the marriage was performed happily. On the next day of marriage, they had gone to meet the in-laws of his daughter, at that time, no talks with regard to dowry took place neither any dispute arose. He further admitted that he met his daughter and no objection was made. His further crossexamination reveals that his daughter informed that her anklet is small one and it would be better if he changes the anklet. He denied the suggestion that his daughter was never harassed in the name of anklet and T.V. He denied the suggestion that there is no light in the house where the appellants are residing. He admitted that the house is situated in the basti and light is there. However, he himself stated that the appellant’s house is situated outside the colony and there is no light in the house. He visited the in-laws of her daughter twice and the appellant No.1 visited him twice after the marriage. In para 20, he admits omission with regard to beating with the girl in the police station (Ex.D/1 and D/2). He also admits omission in the police statement (Ex.D/1 and D/2) with regard to sufferings in the in-laws’ house. He also admits omission in the diary statement (Ex.D/1 and D/2) that when he informed regarding illness of his wife, the appellants did not send his daughter with him. He also admits omission in his case diary statement (Ex.D/1 and D/2) that when he was returning after dropping his daughter, she told him that the appellants are talking about non-giving of color T.V.

¶49

Next important witness is Naan Bai (PW3) sister of the deceased. She also

¶50

8

¶51

deposed in the same line with regard to demand of color T.V. and big anklet. However, in the cross-examination, she states that she has married for 19-20 years and only visit her maternal home during the period of festival. At the time of marriage of the deceased, she was in her maternal home. After marriage, the deceased had gone to her matrimonial home and this witness stayed in her maternal home for only 3 days and thereafter, she did not visit her maternal home. In para 9 of the cross-examination, she admits to have spoken about demand of color T.V. and big anklet resulting into suffering of the deceased for the first time in the Court. Even otherwise, this witness could not have met the deceased as after the marriage, the deceased had gone to her matrimonial home and this witness, after 3-4 days living in her maternal home went to her matrimonial home. Therefore, her statement cannot be said to be of sterling quality.

¶52

Chhedinbai (PW7) is the mother of the deceased. She also stated in the same line as that of his husband. Rest of the witnesses are not that much of significance to arrive at a conclusion with regard to conviction under Section 304 B of IPC.

¶53

The Supreme Court in the case of Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 2 SCC 629 in para 15 held as under:-

¶54

“15. As per the definition of ‘dowry death’ in Section 304-B IPC and the wording in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it is necessary to show that ‘soon before death’ the woman concerned had been subjected to cruelty or harassment “for or in connection with the demand of dowry”. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it becomes obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.”

¶55

Likewise in case of Hira Lal and ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

¶56

9

¶57

reported in (2003) 8 SCC 80 in Para 9 as under:-

¶58

“9. 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. 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. 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 by prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket 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 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 has 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 concerned cruelty or harassment 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 concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.

¶59

10

¶60

In the case of Asha & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2014) 4 SCC 174 in Para 17 held as under:-

¶61

“17….. the trial Court and the appellate Court have not taken great care in analysing and appreciating the evidence on record, keeping in view the gravity of the offence of dowry death and the punishment prescribed for it U/s 304-B of the IPC. They were required to scrutinise the evidence very cautiously and carefully in order to arrive at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of the offence with reference to the conditions enumerated u/s 304-B IPC to convict the accused have been satisfied by the prosecution…. ”

¶62

Apart from this the Supreme Court in case of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 454 was dealing with the case related to Section 304-B of IPC. Wherein conclusion with regard to demand of motorcycle was made. In the identical case, the Supreme Court held in Para 21 as under:-

¶63

“21. ….It is only certain oral averments regarding demand of motorcycle and land which is also much prior to the incident. The aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution does not fulfill the pre-requisites to invoke presumption under Section 304B IPC or Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Even the ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made out for the same reason as there is no evidence of cruelty and harassment to the deceased soon before her death.”

¶64

Now the question arises before this Court is whether the prosecution was able to prove the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death on account of demand of dowry and in this case, presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act can be drawn against the appellant.

¶65

Having considered the statement of the witnesses, it is quite vivid that the

¶66

11

¶67

only allegation which appears to have surfaced on record is the demand of color T.V. and suffering of the deceased on account of small anklet. This is a material omission in the diary statement of father of the deceased (PW1) and as discussed earlier, sister of the deceased (PW3) could not have opportunity to meet with the deceased for the reasons as discussed herein above. The mother having natural affection with the daughter would make some allegations against the appellants as her daughter has died within a short period of her marriage.

¶68

The cumulative assessment of the evidence clearly establish that the marriage between the appellant No.1 and the deceased took place about 3 months prior to the incident. Father of the deceased Ramratan Sahu (PW1) makes a bald allegation of demand of color T.V. and small anklet and these allegations continued in the statement of Naan Bai (PW3) sister of the deceased and Chhedinbai (PW7). It is to be noted that there is material omission with regard to these allegations in their police statement. Every omission may not be fatal to the prosecution but if such omission in continuation goes to the root of the case, then definitely it would have an effect on the credibility of the witness.

¶69

Considering the facts circumstances and the evidence led by the prosecution, prosecution failed to establish the proximit live link between the demand of dowry and death. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to draw presumption against the appellants under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The lodgment of the report appears to be an aftermath of traumatic experience by the relatives of the deceased after coming to know about the tragic death of the deceased otherwise the material collected by the prosecution does not conclusively go to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry prompting her to commit suicide and thus the conviction of the accused /

¶70

12

¶71

appellants under Section 304-B of IPC does not appear to be in consonance with the settled legal position holding the field in the light of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted above.

¶72

Hence, the appeal of the appellants is allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge.

¶73

The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds will remain in force for a period of 6 months in view of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023.

¶74

Records with copy of this judgment be sent back to learned trial Court for information and compliance, if any.

¶75

Sd/({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE

¶76

Deepti

¶77

Digitally signed
by DEEPTI
DEEPTI HARIKUMAR
HARIKUMAR Date:2025.07.29
13:28:17
+0530

Balak Ram v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balak Ram v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saran Ram Kodaku Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandan Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Uma Dwivedi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Chandrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Indrapal Singh Hora (through Legle Representative Harjeet Kour ) Vs Vikky Kumar Idnani

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs Baldev Singh