Adharu and others … v. State of Uttarakhand

(Smt. Furi Devi, Ramesh Lal) have been convicted under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC and were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B of IPC with a fine of ₹1,000/- each with default stipulation of additional six months rigorous imprisonment and were sentenced one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A of IPC with a fine of ₹1,000/- each with default stipulation of six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The Criminal Appeal No.257 of 2007 preferred by appellant-Dinesh Lal, husband of the deceased.

5. In brief, case of the prosecution is that Smt. Rameshwari who was daughter of informant namely Suresh was married to Dinesh Lal as per Hindu rites and rituals. The complainant lodged a complaint on

17.12.2004 to Revenue Sub-Inspector alleging therein that his daughter has either been killed on account of non-payment of dowry or has been instigated to commit suicide by her in-laws and her husband.

6. On the basis of above complaint the Revenue Sub-Inspector lodged a report bearing Case Crime No.2 of 2004, under Sections 304-B, 498-A r/w Section 34 of IPC. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to 3 Nayab Tehsildar who inspected the alleged place of incident and made a site plan and arrested the appellants/accused persons. Thereafter the investigation was transferred to regular Police who after investigation filed a charge sheet under Section 304-B, 498-A r/w Section 34 of IPC in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to learned Sessions Judge for trial.

7. On 15.02.2006, learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1-Smt. Shakuntala, PW2-Satta Devi, PW3- Suresh, PW4-Govind, PW5-Ramesh, PW6-Revenue Sub- Inspector – Sohan Lal, PW7-Dr. Dilip, PW8-Indra Bhatt, PW9-Vinod Sharma to substantiate and prove charges against the appellants.

9. After prosecution evidence, the statement of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they stated that they were innocent and claimed to be tried. The husband of the deceased further stated that the deceased was unhappy with him as he had rejected her proposal to accompany him to Chandigarh because of financial constraints and because of this she herself set her ablaze and he or his family members have no role whatsoever in her suicidal death.

10. During trial PW1-Smt. Shakuntala who is the mother of the deceased, on oath, stated that her deceased daughter got married to one Dinesh around 3 4 and half years ago from the alleged date of incident. She further stated that the deceased used to tell her that she is being continuously subjected to cruelty by her in-laws due to non-payment of dowry. She also submitted that Dinesh once came to that house and demanded financial help to open a shop.

11. PW2-Smt. Satta Devi the maternal grandmother of the deceased, who on oath stated that the deceased got married around 3 and a half years ago. She further submitted that the deceased used to visit her regularly as her home was near to deceased matrimonial home and often used to apprise her that she is being subjected to cruelty by her in-laws on account of failure to bring dowry. She also stated that when she met her around 8 days prior to her death then also she informed her that she is being subjected to cruelty on account of non-payment of dowry.

12. PW3-Suresh is the complainant and father of the deceased, who, on oath, reiterated the prosecution story and supported the version of PW1 and PW2. He further stated that he got to know about the death of his daughter on 11.12.2024 from one Mr. Gobind, but lodged a complaint on 17.12.2004 as he was aware that a report has already been lodged by Dinesh and he was under the impression that he would naturally be examined by the authorities in furtherance of that report but when he was not examined he himself lodged a complaint on

17.12.2004. In his cross-examination he denied the fact that the delay was caused as the complaint was lodged after building up a story. He further stated that he is not well educated and does not know much about legal 5 provisions and added Section 306 of IPC on the basis of advice given by Patwari.

13. PW4-Gobind Singh is a shopkeeper who lives near the matrimonial house of the deceased, who, on oath, submitted that he only passed on the information of death to the complainant and is not aware about any transaction which resulted into the death of the deceased.

14. PW5-Ramesh is the uncle of the deceased and he on oath deposed that he got to know about the death of the deceased and attended her last rites. In his cross examination he stated that as he lives in a separate house he is not cognizant of the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws on account of failure to give dowry.

15. PW6-Sohan Lal, was the Sub-Inspector (Revenue), at the relevant point of time, who, on oath, deposed that he was first informed regarding the death of the deceased by Dinesh on 11.12.2004 on the basis of which he visited the alleged place of incident and prepared relevant documents and sent the body for post mortem, but thereafter closed the case treating it as suicide and only when he received a complaint on

17.12.2004 from the father of the deceased he further investigated the case.

16. PW7-Dr. Dilip, was the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem, and, on oath, stated that the death of the deceased was caused due to burn injuries.

17. PW8-Indra Dutt Bhatt was the Nayab Tehsildar, who on oath, stated that when investigation 6 was handed-over to him, he visited the alleged place of incident on 25.12.2004, made site plan, but could not examine witnesses as no one was present nearby. He further stated that thereafter the investigation was handed-over to regular Police.

18. PW9-Vinod Sharma was the final Investigating Officer, who, on oath, stated that he re took the statements of the witnesses to satisfy himself and on being satisfied submitted the charge sheet.

19. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the case in hand is a case of suicide and the prosecution has not proved any demand of dowry at the behest of accused-appellants. Therefore the learned trial court has erred in law in convicting the appellants under Sections 304-B and 498- A of IPC. He further argues that the husband of the deceased Mr. Dinesh had already informed the concerned Patwari on 11.12.2004 about the incident but father of the deceased lodged a well-thought-of report on

17.12.2004 after an unexplained delay of 7-8 days.

20. It is also vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the entire case is based on material improvement and on the basis of second FIR which was lodged on 17.12.2004 which is itself hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. He further argues that the essential ingredient to bring a case under Section 304-B of IPC i.e., subjecting the deceased to cruelty in connection of demand of dowry is absent in this case as there is no FIR or charge sheet under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He relied on para no.6 of the case of Sakhi Mandalani Vs. State of Bihar and others report in 7 (1999) 5 SCC 705. He also submits that the trial court did not follow the mandate of Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

21. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the second FIR cannot be lodged as per the bar provided in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 pronounced by the Apex Court and the entire investigation is therefore faulty and cannot be relied on as the second FIR will be hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. as the second FIR will be “statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of investigation”. He further argued that the second FIR was dictated by the Patwari to the complainant which is admitted by the complainant himself. He also submits that all the accused persons are first time offenders and they could be released as per provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

22. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the case of prosecution and submitted that the FIR which is being conveniently labeled as second FIR implicated the accused-appellants for committing cruelty and dowry death of the deceased and the report which was lodged by Dinesh on 11.12.2004 was merely an information of suicide committed by deceased, and therefore it cannot be said to be hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that PW1, PW2 and PW3 have categorically stated that deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws therefore the trial court rightly convicted the accused-appellants after appreciating the evidence. 8

23. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record and after going through the relevant provisions under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing on record to prove the guilt of the appellant to the hilt and beyond all reasonable doubts.

24. Section 304B IPC for which the appellant was convicted needs a look, before arriving at a conclusion. Section 304B IPC is quoted below:-

25. “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 purpose of this sub- section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).” 498-A. Whoever, being the husband or relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"— 9 (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

26. From perusal of Section 304B IPC, it reflects that following ingredients need to be proved to make out an offence viz:- (i) Unnatural which may suicidal/homicidal. (ii) Within seven years of marriage. (iii) Soon before her death cruelty or harassment. (iv) By the husband or his relative in connection with dowry.

27. Here in the case in hand, it is very clear from perusal of the record that neither any prosecution witness alleges “cruelty or harassment” meted out by the appellant “in connection to dowry” nor the prosecution has proved the same. It is amply clear that the statements given by PW1, PW2 & PW3 are bald statements which do not indicate any form of cruelty meted out to deceased by the appellant. Although PW2 has categorically stated that she was informed regarding 10 the cruelty meted out to her for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry before eight days prior to her death, but she has in her cross-examination herself admitted that she did not inform the investigating authorities about this fact and only at the stage of trial for the first time she informed about this to the trial court. This can be clearly said to be a material improvement which was well thought of therefore her statement does not inspire confidence. Thus the presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, would not be attracted.

28. As it is a settled proposition of law that Section 304-B of IPC is an offence of strict liability and the mens rea to cause the death need not be proved and only the actus reus of subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative in connection with any demand for dowry is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.

29. This Court is of the opinion that in the case in hand none of the prosecution witness and evidences adduced by them could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants meted cruelty towards the deceased on account of failure to bring dowry as stated above; their statements are only bald statements the perusal of which clearly shows that they have been well thought of. They produced no evidence regarding the amount of dowry, when the dowry was asked for, any evidence regarding cruelty committed towards the deceased for failure to bring dowry. They only supported their claims by bald statements which cannot be said to be sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons- appellants. 11

30. Further, the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC in my opinion is also not made out against the appellants as the prosecution has failed to prove any sort of cruelty by the appellants towards to meet any unlawful demand as given in Section 498A of IPC. Neither the evidence of prosecution witnesses in the course of trial indicate any sort of cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC.

31. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellants that in this matter, second FIR was lodged which is impermissible under the law. However the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs Vs. Suresh Chand reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 358 has held otherwise that in the peculiar circumstances, second FIR too can be taken into consideration. Relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR: 9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered. 9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. 9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. 9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. 9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.”

32. Thus the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants of registration of second F.I.R. is rejected. But as the essential ingredients of Section 12 304-B and 498-A of IPC have not been proved by the prosecution, therefore conviction cannot sustain and deserved to be set aside.

33. In this view of matter, it is safe to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant.

34. The upshot of the aforesaid discussions is that both the appeals deserve to be allowed.

35. Accordingly both the appeals are allowed and impugned judgments orders

20.06.2007/23.06.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri-Garhwal in S.T. No.36 of 2005, State Vs. Dinesh Lal and others is hereby set-aside. The appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender. Sureties discharged.

36. Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the trial court for consignment. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.)

24.09.2025