). 1. Mongia Devi 2. Pramod Rawani @ Leha The State of Jharkhand ……… v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 489 of 2017 …….. (Against the judgment of conviction dated 16.02.2017 and order of sentence dated 16.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- VII, Dhanbad in Session Trial No.499 of 2012). 1. Mongia Devi 2. Pramod Rawani @ Leha The State of Jharkhand ……… Versus ….. Appellants …. Respondent ----------- PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand ……… For the Appellants For the State : M/s. Harsh Raj & Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, APP Per Ananda Sen, J.: J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the appellants, M/s. Harsh Raj & Indrajit Sinha and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.04.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 499 of 2012 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 304(B)/34 of the IPC and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
Legal Reasoning
subjected to cruelty. Thus, we find that there was demand of dowry which was followed by torture. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 we also find that for 5-6 months there was no problem in the matrimonial home but soon thereafter the demand and torture started. The marriage was solemnized on 3.7.2011 and as per their statement, 5/6 month has expired in December/January. This means, the demand and torture started after January and the death had taken place on 22nd February. Thus, it can be held that demand of dowry and torture, was soon before death and the same was for dowry. 15. From what has been held above, we find that prosecution has established all the three ingredients which would attract Section 304B of the IPC 16. Now when the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the basic ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC, as per Section 113B of the Evidence Act we have to presume that the death is a dowry death caused by accused/appellants, until and unless the appellants disprove the same. 17. When we go through the evidence of the parties, especially the statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, we do not find any material to come to any conclusion that appellants have discharged their duty. When the burden has shifted upon the accused, they were supposed to discharge the same but they failed to discharge, as there is nothing in the evidence which can come to the rescue of the appellants. Presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act is presumption of law where the essentials have to be proved by -6- the prosecutions. It is obligatory on their part to raise a presumption that the accused has caused dowry death. In the instant case presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is attracted as the prosecution has succeeded in proving the circumstances as contemplated in Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code. In absence of any material which disproves the aforesaid presumption, we must draw inference that these appellants have committed the offence of dowry death. 18. Considering what has been held above since the appellants have failed to discharge their duty whereas the prosecution has established the conditions necessary to prove the dowry death under Section 304B of the IPC, we have no other option but to dismiss the appeal. 19. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.499 of 2012 (arising out of Baliapur P.S. Case No.15 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No.697 of 2012) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –VII, Dhanbad do not warrant any interference by this Court and, hence, it is affirmed. 20. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 21. The Trial Court record be transmitted to the trial court. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 22nd April, 2024 Anjali/NAFR -7-
Arguments
3. Counsel for the appellants submit that prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of this appellants. There is no evidence that the appellants had played role in commission of death of the deceased. It has also been submitted that the deceased has committed suicide and thus no fault can be attributed to the appellants. As the case is of suicide cannot be said that this appellant were involved in committing dowry death. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that all the necessary ingredients are present to attract Section 304(B)/34 IPC. The witnesses have stated that appellants demanded dowry and death is unnatural death and incidence occurred within seven years from the date of marriage. On this evidence the defence could not put forth any material in rebuttal, thus the conviction needs no interference. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have gone through the records. The fardbeyan is Exhibit- 1 and the same is at the instance of Shakuntala Devi (mother of the deceased). In the fardbeyan informant has stated that marriage of her daughter Jyotsna Devi was solemnized with Pramod Rawani on 03.07.2011 and on 22.02.2012 Pramod Rawani (husband of Jyotsna Devi) mother-in-law of Jyotsna Devi and Gour Rawani ( Bhaisur of Jyotsna Devi) assaulted Jyotsna Devi and killed her by strangulating her neck. The informant has further alleged in her written report that Rs.32,000/- was given at the time of marriage before the members of the society and before one day of killing of Jyotsna Devi, the accused persons started making demand of Rs.60,000/- in cash, one vehicle and ornaments and all of sudden on 22.02.2012 the aforesaid accused persons killed her daughter Jyotsna Devi while she was carrying pregnancy of five months in her womb.- 6. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Baliapur P.S. Case No. 15 of 2012 dated 22.02.2012 under Section 304 (B)/34 IPC was registered. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 304(B) of the IPC. On 05.08.2008 after serving the copies of police papers under the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C to the defence, the case has been committed to the Sessions Court. On 16.10.2012, charge under Section 304(B)/34 & Section 302/34 IPC has been framed against the above named accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. Thirteen witnesses have been examined in this case. P.W.-1 (Basdeo Rawani) is the uncle of the deceased who stated that the marriage of deceased and Pramod Rawani was love marriage. He further stated that after the marriage deceased went to her in-laws house and she remained peacefully 5-6 months. He further stated that one motorcycle and Rs.60,000/- was demanded by her husband, mother-in-law and Bhaisur and she was assaulted by them in connection with the aforesaid demand. Accused persons killed deceased due to demand of dowry. He further deposed that he got information about the death of Jyotsna Devi then he went there and saw Pramod Rawani was un-tieding the rope from the neck of deceased and all three accused persons fled away along with the rope. -2- P.W.-2 (Mohan Rawani) is the father of the deceased who stated that his daughter was married with Pramod Rawani in the year 2011. He further submitted that after six months of marriage her husband, mother-in-law and Bhaisur were started making demand of Rs.60,000/- and one motorcycle from his daughter and subjected her to assault in connection with the aforesaid demand. He further deposed that on 22.02.2012 his daughter was killed by accused persons after strangulating her. He further deposed that as he could not fulfill the demand of accused persons so accused persons killed her daughter. He saw mark of rope on the neck of his daughter. P.W.-3 (Anand Rawani) is the maternal uncle of deceased he deposed that the marriage of Jyotsna Devi was solemnized with Pramod Rawani on 03.07.2011 and during the marriage Rs.32,000/- was given to Duryodhan Rawani. He further deposed that husband, mother-in-law and Bhaisur of the deceased were making demand of Rs.60,000/- and one vehicle from the deceased and they used to quarrel with her for the same. He further deposed that Shankuntala Devi told him through telephone about the death of the deceased then he along with his mother went at the matrimonial home of deceased and saw deceased lying dead on cot and there was black mark over the neck of deceased and none of the family member of her in-laws were present there. He saw mark of rope on the neck of the deceased. P.W.-4, (Shakuntala Devi) is the mother of the deceased has supported the factum of subjecting to cruelty and assault upon the deceased soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. She also supported the fact of demand of dowry. P.Ws. 5, 7, 8 &, 9 have been declared hostile during deposition. P.Ws. 6 & 10 have not supported the case of prosecution P.W.-11 (Dr. Nityanand Kumar) is a Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and found several injuries:- 1) External wound:- Built was average, postmortem lividity over the back of trunk, rigor mortise was present partially on upper limb and fully in lower limbs. i) Swelling of 1 ½” over right side of forehead with abrasion of ¼” X ¼”. ii) 3” X ½” bruise over outer side of right elbow. iii) Abrasion ¼” X ½” over dorsum of left foot. -3- iv) Ligature mark ½” X ¼” wide running transversely over larynx in front of neck, transversely in right side neck and back side of neck, obliquely from both front and back towards the left mastoid with any gap. Ligature mark was dark brown, lathery, parchment paper like with pattern of rope. On dissection uterus was found gravid with dead male foetus of age about 24 to 30 weeks. Death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. The Postmortem Report is in his pen and signature which has been marked as Ext.2 P.W.12 (Bharamdeo Prasad) is the I.O of this case has deposed that he was deputed for the investigation of this case. The writing and signature of Sri Abinash Kumar, the then Officer-in-Charge of Baliapur P.S. has been identified by him and marked as Ext.1/1 and formal FIR of Baliapur P.S. Case No. 15 of 2012 is also in the signature of the said officer-in-charge and the same has been identified and marked as Ext.3. He further deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the restatement of informant. This witness gave the detailed description and vicinity of place of occurrence during his evidence. He prepared inquest report and sent the dead body of deceased for postmortem examination. He stated that during the re-statement of informant he has supported the story of FIR. He has recorded the statement of witnesses, who have also supported the occurrence. After receiving the postmortem examination report he has submitted charge against Pramod Rawani @ Leba for the offence punishable under Section 304 (B) of IPC showing the investigation continued against other accused persons. He further deposed that he was transferred so the charge of investigation against the other accused persons given by him to the officer-in-charge of Baliapur P.S. P.W.13 (Dhirendra Prasad) is second I.O who investigated the case of accused Gour Rawani and Mongia Devi after the transfer of Brahamdeo Prasad first I.O of this case. He deposed that on 3.7.2012 he took charge of invesgiation of Baliapur P.S Case No. 15 of 2012 and during investigation he inspected the original case diary and inspected the place of occurrence and during investigation he found the case true, against the accused persons, namely, Gour Rawani and Mongia Devi thereafter submitted charge-sheet against them for the offence punishable under Section 304 (B)/34 of the IPC. -4- 8. After conclusion of the evidence, the trial court found the appellants guilty thus convicted them under Section 304(B)/34 of the IPC and sentenced them accordingly. 9. We have heard the parties and have gone through the entire records. 10. Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is quoted herein below:- “304B. Dowry Death.- 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 purpose 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.” 11. From the analysis of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that ingredients to attract Section 304 B of the IPC are :- (a) the death of a women should be caused by any burns or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances (b) within seven years of marriage (c) soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the husband or by her in-laws for or in connection with demand of dowry. 12. Once, all these ingredients are established by the prosecution, in terms of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption that such persons has caused dowry death. The Court has no option but to presume that the accused has caused dowry death unless the accused disproves it. The presumption can only be rebutted. The accused can discharge their burden either by eliciting answers through cross-examination of the prosecution witness or by adducing evidence from the side of the defence or by both, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vrs. State of Karnataka reported in 2001 (2) SCC 577. 13. Considering the aforesaid provision of law let us evaluate the materials. From the evidence led by the parties as narrated above, we find that marriage of -5- the appellant no.1 was solemnized with the deceased on 3.7.2011. The death occurred on 22.2.2012. Thus, the death occurred within seven years of marriage. In the instant case admittedly the death is otherwise than under normal circumstances as the doctor has opined that she died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. The death by asphyxia as a result of hanging is not a death which can be said to be caused in normal course. This is not a natural death rather it is an unnatural death. 14. Further when we look the evidence of the prosecution witnesses we find that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 & 4 clearly stated that there was persistent demand of dowry from the appellants. One motorcycle and Rs.60,000/- was demanded. This evidence is consistent so far as PWs. 1, 2 & 3 are concerned. The mother, P.W.4 also stated that demand was being made and for which the deceased was