High Court allowed criminal appeals in dowry death cases. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove specific cruelty or harassment by appellants soon before the deceased's death. Bald allegations were insufficient.
Impugned conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled; new personal bonds required.
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.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2004
Sher Singh and others …........ Appellants Vs. The State of Uttaranchal …..... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2004
Birendra Singh …........ Appellant Vs. The State of Uttaranchal …..... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 2004
Deewan Singh …........ Appellant Vs. The State of Uttaranchal …..... Respondent
Present : Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the these appeals, they are decided by this common judgment.
2
Singh and others, and Sessions Trial No. 168 of 2002, State v. Diwan Singh, by the court of Sessions Judge, Nainital. By the impugned judgment and order;
(i) the appellants Sher Singh, Virendra Singh, Parvati Devi and Km. Geeta have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and sentenced as hereunder:-
(ii) the appellant Deewan Singh has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act and sentenced as hereunder:-
3
(i) Section 304B IPC - rigorous
imprisonment for a period of ten years.
(ii) Section 498A IPC - rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
(iii) Section 3/4 of the Act – rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
4
prosecution that the deceased was further pressurized to bring Rs. 10,000/- for the marriage. The deceased wrote two letters, one to her elder brother Jagat Singh and another to her brother-in-law demanding the money. Unfortunately, on 21.04.1999, the deceased died of poisoning. The inquest was prepared and the postmortem was conducted. The cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved and sent for forensic examination. The viscera examination report subsequently confirmed that it had Aluminium Phosphite and Ethyle Alcohol poison. On 24.04.1999, PW 5 Pushpendra Singh Rawat, the brother of the deceased, filed an FIR. Investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer (“the IO”). He prepared a site plan. In fact, along with the FIR, two letters, which the deceased had written to her brother and the brother-in-law were also enclosed. After investigation, the chargesheet has been submitted against all the appellants. On 12.07.2002, charge under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act were framed against the appellants.
5
informant, PW 2 Jagat Singh, the brother of the deceased, PW 3 Dr. B.D. Naryal, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased, PW 4 Bishan Singh, who prepared the chik FIR, PW 5 Surendra Pal Singh, who prepared the inquest report, Ex. A-7, PW 6 Darshan Lal Chitran, who conducted the investigation of the case and submitted the chargesheet against the appellants Sher Singh, Parvati Devi, Birendra Singh and Km. Geeta, PW 7 Bimala Gunjial, who initially conducted the investigation and prepared the site plan of the case, Ex. A-12 and PW 8 Kaptan Singh, who proved the chargesheet submitted against the appellant Deewan Singh sent by the IO, Ex. A-19.
6
case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. He would raise the following points in his submission.
(I) The appellant Deewan Singh was serving in the Indian Army. The deceased was staying all alone in her house.
(II) The appellants Birendra Singh, Sher Singh, Km. Geeta and Smt. Parvati Devi were residing separate to the deceased Babita. They had no connection whatsoever in the day to day life of the deceased and the appellant Deewan Singh.
(IV) The parents of the deceased have not been examined. Had it been a case of dowry death, the brother or parents of the deceased would have protested at the time of inquest or lodged the FIR at an earlier opportunity, which they did not.
7
(V) The statements of the witnesses are not reliable. There are great contradictions in the statements of PW 1 Pushpendra Singh Rawat and PW 2 Jagat Singh with regard to the role of the appellants.
(I) Soon after the marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants for the demand of additional dowry.
(II) In the year 1998, the deceased was pressurized to bring Rs. 15,000/from her parents’ house so as to repay the loan, which was taken by
8
the appellant Sher Singh from a bank. This amount was paid.
(III) On 05.05.1999, the marriage of appellant Geeta, who is sister-in-law of the deceased, was scheduled. The appellants had then also pressurized the deceased to bring Rs. 10,000/from her parents’ house. The deceased demanded this money from her brother and the brother-in-law. She wrote two letters, which have been proved by PW 1 Pushpendra Singh Rawat, the brother of the deceased, as Ex. A-1 and A-2. A reading of these two letters expressly makes it clear that dowry was demanded from the deceased. Since, this demand could not be met, she died other than under normal circumstances.
9
PW 1 Pushpendra Singh Rawat and
PW 2 Jagat Singh.
impugned judgment and order is in accordance with law and it does not warrant any interference.
10
“ 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.
Explanation .—For the purposes of this subsection, “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.”
(i) death of a woman is caused by burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than normal circumstances;
(ii) such death occurs within seven
years of her marriage;
11
(iii) it is shown that soon before her
death, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty and harassment has been done for or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
hereunder:-
“ 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 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.
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).”
12
cases, it is always prudent to carefully examine the evidence.
13
possible ”. The Court further observed “ Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of Respondent 2 complainant without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings …”
14
15
16
words “soon” and “immediate” occurring in Section 304 B
IPC and in para 24 held as hereunder:-
“24. We endorse what has been said by these two decisions. Days or months are not what is to be seen. What must be borne in mind is that the word “soon” does not mean “immediate”. A fair and pragmatic construction keeping in mind the great social evil that has led to the enactment of Section 304-B would make it clear that the expression is a relative expression. Time-lags may differ from case to case. All that is necessary is that the demand for dowry should not be stale but should be the continuing cause for the death of the married woman under Section 304-B.”
17
dowry. According to PW 1 Pushpendra Singh Rawat, in the year 1998, the deceased was pressurized to bring money from her parents’ house so that appellant Sher Singh may repay his loan, therefore, Rs. 15,000/- was given to the deceased. The marriage of appellant Geeta was scheduled for 05.05.1999. According to this witness, for the purposes of this marriage also, the deceased was pressurized to bring money. This witness has proved two letters written by the deceased to her brother-in-law Surendra Singh Rawat, Ex. A-1, and to her brother Jagat Singh Rawat, Ex. A-2 (In fact, Ex. A-1 is letter written to brother & bhabhi and Ex. A-2 is letter written to brotherin-law & sister; wrong marking of exhibits does not make any difference). According to this witness, the deceased had demanded money from her brother-in-law and her brother. This witness has proved FIR, Ex. A-1.
18
postmortem report, Ex. A-3. According to him, the viscera was preserved as the cause of death could not be ascertained. Observing the features of the dead body, according to this witness, the death could have occurred on 21.04.1999.
investigation and submitted chargesheet against all the appellants except the appellant Deewan Singh, which is Ex. A-11. In fact, the investigation was earlier conducted by PW 7 Bimala Kunjial, who had prepared site plan. PW 7 Bimala Kunjial has proved the site plan, Ex. A-12, which was prepared by her.
19
20
there should be a proximate connectivity with the harassment or torture and death. This is what falls for consideration of this Court.
21
are that the appellants harassed and tortured the deceased. How and in what manner and who did what? In fact, a very detailed, meticulous explanation may not be expected in such cases, but then mere bald allegations may also not substantiate the allegations. There should be something more than bald or omnibus allegations. Is it there in the instant case?
in-chief, in paragraph 1, has stated that the appellants harassed and tortured the deceased for demand of dowry, but in page 3, paragraph 2, this witness is categorical that from the date of her marriage till she died, the deceased never complained of against her husband. It
22
somehow contradicts the statement of PW 2 Jagat Singh from his statement given in the examination-in-chief.
23
that she needs money, but she does not write that she is writing under any compulsion.
24
any demand that was made by the appellants or any of them from her.
25
26
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 19.04.2022
Avneet/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty for dowry soon before her death.
Whether the evidence established the specific role of each appellant in the dowry death charge.
Whether the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act can be invoked in these facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and anotherExplained¶79
Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 · Who else cites this
Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and anotherExplained¶80
Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 · Who else cites this
Ramesh v. State of Tamil NaduExplained¶80
Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 3 SCC 507 · Who else cites this
K. Subba Rao and others v. State of TelanganaExplained¶83
K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 · Who else cites this
Kahkashan Kaushar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and othersExplained¶85
Kahkashan Kaushar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 · Who else cites this
Appasaheb and another v. State of MaharashtraExplained¶88
Appasaheb and another v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721 · Who else cites this
Rajinder Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶88
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 4 enactments
Sher Singh and others
Birendra Singh
Deewan Singh
The State of Uttaranchal
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
