High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 206/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr A. Sharif, learned counsel appearing for the accused a ppellant. Also heard Ms B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam f or the respondent State. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 25. 09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Darrang, Mangaldo i, in Sessions Case No. 8(DM)/2007 whereby and whereunder the appellant was conv icted under Section 304 B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI ) for ten (10) years. 3. ows: Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as foll
Legal Reasoning
Md. Sadeque Ali, father-in-law of the appellant herein lodged an FIR on 11.08.2005 before the Officer-In-charge (’O/C’ for short), Dhula Police Station against the appellant, his aunt and mother, contending inter alia that his daug hter Mustt. Sabeda Khatun (hereinafter to be referred to as the deceased), was g iven marriage to the appellant as per social rites and ceremonies about seven (7 ) months prior to the date of filing of the FIR. A few days after the marriage, the appellant started causing physical torture to the deceased, demanding dowry. Despite the sufferings, his daughter remained in her husband’s house. But on 09 .08.2005 in the evening, the accused appellant through a messenger informed abou t her death. Immediately he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and ca me to know that due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry his daughter was physi cally tortured and killed by the accused persons. The informant being at a loss, though he was brought to the police station could not lodge the FIR on 09.08.20 05, but the same was lodged only on 11.08.2005. It has been further alleged that all the accused persons with conspiracy killed his daughter. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, investigation was carried out by the police and a charge sheet was filed under section 304 B IPC against the thre e accused persons named in the FIR including the appellant. The learned Session s Judge framed charges against the accused persons under section 304 B/498(A)/30 6/34 of the IPC. The charges so framed being read over and explained to the accu sed persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the trial, prosecution examined as many as eight (8) witnesse 5. s including the Informant, the Investigating Officer, the Medical Officer and th e Circle Officer of Dalgaon Revenue Circle. However, defence adduced no evidence . Their plea was of complete denial. 6. After closure of the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial co urt recorded the statement of the accused persons under section 313 CrPC, wherei n, the accused persons stated that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and there was no torture with regard to demand of dowry and thus pleaded innocen ce. 7. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record passed the judgment of conviction and sentenced the accused persons as indicated hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal. 8. Admittedly, it is a case of unnatural death, which was committed within a period of one year of marriage of the deceased with the accused in her matrimonial house. 9. The learned trial Court, though observed that there was no direc t evidence or circumstantial evidence with regard to any torture leading to the commission of suicide, the fact of unnatural death or suicide was caused within a period of less than one year in the matrimonial house of the deceased is not d enied and therefore, invoking legal presumption under Sections 113A and 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, more so, there being no evidence adduced by the defenc e to prove that there was no demand of dowry or torture, convicted the accused a ppellant under Section 304 B IPC. However, while convicting the accused as afore said, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused Ms Sakma Khatoon and Ms Hanu fa Khatoon due to lack of any evidence found against them. 10. Mr. Sharif, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contende d that the learned trial Court erred in drawing a presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act and shifting the onus of proof on the accused without the prosecution having proved the basic requirement under the said section. He has f urther contended that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution to establish either the demand of dowry or harassment meted out to the deceased cannot be ac cepted at all because the same is afterthought of PW 1, i.e. the father of the d eceased to harass the appellant as well as his family members after his daughter committed suicide. The learned counsel has further contended that PW 1, the fat her of the deceased as well as the accused, i.e. husband of the deceased were pr esent together at the time of inquest held over the dead body of the deceased, p ostmortem examination done by the doctor in the Civil Hospital at Mangaldoi as w ell as at the cremation ground. On the other hand, the occurrence took place on 9.8.2005 but the FIR was lodged only on 11.9.2005. Therefore, Mr. Sharif has con tended that the trial Court below ought not to have relied upon such a belated F IR. Mr. Sharif has further contended that the learned trial Court ought not to h ave convicted the accused under Section 304 B IPC drawing presumption under Sect ion 113 B of the Evidence Act considering the evidence adduced by the prosecutio n, who could not prove the basic requirement as laid down under Section 113 B. H ence, submitted Mr. Sharif that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Per contra, Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Addl. PP, Assam appearing for 11. the respondent State has contended that the learned trial Court was justified in drawing presumption against the accused; because the death of the deceased caus ed within one year of their marriage and that too it was an unnatural death. Lea rned Addl. PP has further contended that primarily from the evidence of PW 1, i. e. the father of the deceased as well as other prosecution witnesses it is clear that there was a demand of dowry and for not getting the dowry they asked for, the deceased was harassed mentally and physically. Thus learned trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its c ase against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the jud gment of conviction may not be interfered with. 12. Perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court below clearly shows that the learned trial Court relying upon Section 113 A and 113 B of the Evidence Act with regard to presumption had shifted the onus to the defence to p rove their innocence in the case. Section 304 B of the IPC defines dowry death w hich reads as follows: (cid:28)304-B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bo dily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven yea rs 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 i n connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called (cid:28)dowry death (cid:29) , and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section, (cid:28)dowry (cid:29) shall have the same me aning 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 w hich shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. (cid:29) 13. A perusal of this section clearly shows that if a married woman dies otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage an d it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassm ent by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand fo r dowry, such death shall be called (cid:28)dowry death (cid:29) and such husband or relative s hall be deemed to have caused her death. The condition precedent for establishin g an offence under this section are as follows: (a) normal circumstances; (b) (c) t in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. such death was caused within 7 years of her marriage; and the prosecution has established that there was cruelty and harassmen that a married woman had died otherwise than under 14. Section 113 B of the Evidence Act permits a presumption to be dr awn against the accused in regard to dowry death provided the prosecution establ ishes that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassme nt. The explanation to said section says the word (cid:28)dowry death (cid:29) shall have t he same meaning as in section 304 B of the IPC which means such death should be otherwise than in normal circumstances and within 7 years of marriage. 15. On a conjoint reading of these two sections, it is clear that fo r drawing presumption under section 113 B of the Evidence Act, firstly, there sh ould be death of woman otherwise than in normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage and the prosecution having shown that soon before her death, she was s ubjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry by per sons accused of having committed the offence. Unless or until these preliminary facts are established by the prosecution, it is not open to the court to draw a presumption against the accused invoking section 113 B of the Evidence Act. In a similar situation, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar - vs- State of Chattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 held as thus, (cid:28)A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suic ide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marri age, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cr uelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances, the court m ay presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative s of her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expres sion (cid:28)may presume (cid:29) suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of the abo vesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption bei ng drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the court shall have to have regar d to (cid:28)all the other circumstances of the case (cid:29). A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the con science of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression- (cid:28)th e other circumstances of the case (cid:29) used in Section 113-A suggests the need to re ach a cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase (cid:28)may presume (cid:29) used in Section 113-A is d efined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says- (cid:28)Whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as p roved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it. (cid:29) 16. From the above it is clear that certain conditions assessing by way of proved facts should be brought on record before the Court for drawing a p resumption under section 113 A or 113 B of the Evidence Act. In view of the above, we will now examine the evidence adduced b 17. y the prosecution to see as to whether the prosecution has been able to discharg e its initial burden so as to attract the presumption under section 113 A and 11 3 B of the Evidence Act and whether the learned trial court has correctly applie d that law to the facts of this case. 18. In the case in hand, there is admittedly no direct evidence or circumst antial evidence and the judgment of conviction was passed solely on presumption . 19. PW 1 who is the father of the deceased has stated that the dece ased was given marriage to the accused and they were living together only for 6 /7 months after their marriage. The accused harassed the deceased and demanded d owry of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only which the deceased has informed only 1/1/‰ months before her death. He has further stated that he suspected tha t the accused persons were responsible for the death of the deceased.
Legal Reasoning
In cross examination, he has stated that the distance between th e house of the accused and his house is about 4 Kms. Due to the demand of dowry of Rs. 5,000/- some difference arose between them. Suggestion put to him that h e did not state before the I/O about the demand of dowry of Rs.5,000/- by the ac cused, has been denied. 20. PW 2 is the sister-in-law of the accused. She has stated that th e deceased and the accused got married before 2 years of the occurrence and they were living peacefully. She committed suicide by hanging before one year. However, the defence declined to cross-examine PW 2. 21. e same tune with that of PW 2. PW 3 is related to the accused person. She has also stated in th Defence declined to cross examine this witness also. 22. PW 4 is a neighbour of the accused person. Her evidence is not relevant , inasmuch as, she is not aware about how the deceased died. She further stated that after hearing hue and cry she went to the house of the accused and has see n the dead body of the deceased in their courtyard. 23. PW 5 who is living in the same village with the accused has sta ted that the accused and the deceased were living peacefully. He was not aware a s to why the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Defence declined to cross examine this witness also. 24. PW 6 is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that after rece ipt of the FIR he started investigating the case, made inquest through an Execut ive Magistrate, sent the dead body to the Civil Hospital, Mangaldoi for postmort em examination and after completion of the same, collected the postmortem report and submitted the charge sheet. In the cross examination, he has stated that the deceased committed suic ide. When confronted with the statement made by PW 1, PW 6 has stated that PW 1 did not tell him about the accused harassing the deceased asking for dowry of Rs .5,000/-. 25. PW 7 is the doctor who held post mortem examination over the de ad body of the deceased. He found fracture dislocation of 2nd cervical vertebrae . He also found spinal cord as lacerated in the site of cervical vertebrae fract ure. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Defence declined to cross examine PW 7. Ext. 4 is the postmortem report. Ext. 4(1) is his signature. 26. t on the dead body. PW 8 is the Circle Officer of Dalgaon Circle. He has made inques Ext. 5 is the Inquest Report. Ext. 5(1) is his signature. He has stated that the witness told him that the deceased commit ted suicide by hanging. He has further stated that the accused who was the husba nd of the deceased was present at the time of doing the Inquest. He has also sig ned in the Inquest report. Defence declined to cross examine PW 8 also. 27. In the statements under section 313 CrPC recorded by the learned trial court, the accused has simply denied the charge leveled against him. The trial Court in the course of its judgments, while dealing wi 28. th the presumption available under Section 113 A and 113 B held as thus;- (cid:28)In the evidence so far discussed, no direct evidence or circumstantial evidence is found with regard to any torture, leading to the commission of suicide. The fact of unnatural death or suicide within the period less than one year in the m atrimonial house is not denied which permit the court to invoke legal presumptio n under Section 113 A and 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act against the accused p erson. To rebut such presumption, burden to some extent shifted to the accused p erson to show as to why such presumption should not be taken against them. Mere taking the plea of commission of suicide is not sufficient to rebut the legal ma ndatory presumption within the meaning of Section 113 B of the Evidence Act. (cid:29) 29. A reading of this part of the judgment clearly shows that the tr ial Court proceeded as if a presumption is available against the accused merely because an allegation of death within seven years of the marriage was made, with out even the prosecution having proved the required preliminary facts. Having so erroneously shifted the onus the court then proceeded to hold that the accused has not discharged the said onus, hence convicted the accused primarily based on the presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act. 30. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, wha t becomes glaring in the eyes is that, except PW 1, according to PWs 2, 3 and 5, who are either related to the accused or neighbour of the accused, the husband and wife, i.e. the accused and the deceased were living peacefully. According to PW 1, father of the deceased, the accused had harassed the deceased demanding d owry of Rs.5,000/-, about which, the deceased informed him about 1/1/‰ months be fore her death, i.e. on one occasion. On the other hand, the distance of their h ouses is only 4 kms. PW 1 did not say anything as to what happened thereafter. H e did not say before the I/O about such demand. At the police station, at the ti me of autopsy as well as in the crematorium, all along, the accused was with PW 1. He did not lodge any FIR immediately. The occurrence took place on 9.8.2005, that too without mentioning about demand of dowry of Rs.5,000/-, which prima fac ie shows that the lodging of FIR was afterthought. Evidence of PW 4 is not mater ial, inasmuch as, he is a reported witness only. That shows that there is no ev idence at all against the accused showing demand of dowry or harassment caused t o the deceased for non-fulfilling the demand of dowry, which also finds support from the evidence of PW 7, the doctor. 31. The trial Court in the course of its judgment has held that the defence side also has failed to provide in the evidence some probable cause of s uicide, which might help them to rebut the presumption under the facts and circu mstances of this case and thus on the presumption alone convicted the accused. 32. From the above discussion, it has become clear that the learned trial Court has not founded the guilt of the accused appellant on the oral evide nce adduced by the prosecution, but the same is based primarily on a presumption drawn under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act, which is not permissible in law in view of the prosecution’s failure to prove the basic facts which was a condit ion precedent to the drawing of such a presumption. 33. For the reasons stated above, the appeal succeeds. The convictio n and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court is set aside. It is s tated that the appellant is in custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not w anted in connection with any other case. 34. Send down the lower court records.