9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 498A and Section 304B Indian Penal Code. By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge had sentenced the Appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under Section 498A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of such fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 years. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the High Court was of the view that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and that the appeal, therefore, deserved to be dismissed. 3. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. R.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961. 4. Mr. Gupta also submitted that the provisions of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act were not applicable in this case since no case for abetment of suicide by the husband or any of the husband's relatives had been alleged. On the other hand, the case sought to be made out is one under Section 113B relating to presumption as to dowry death. Mr. Gupta submitted that the provisions in Section 113B relating to presumption as to dowry death are similar to that of Section 304B IPC. He urged that in order to arrive at the presumption of dowry death, it would have to be shown by the prosecution that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arriages. 7. Mr. Gupta submitted that the evidence in this case was wholly insufficient to even suggest that the victim had been subjected to cruelty or harassment which was sufficient to compel her to commit suicide. In support of his submissions, Mr. Gupta firstly referred to the decision of this Court in Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder and Ors. v. State of W.B.(2008) 1 SCC 202, wherein, in facts which were very similar, it was held that there was practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, the demands of dowry. There was also no finding in that regard. It was further observed that this deficiency in evidence proved fatal for the prosecution case and even otherwise mere evidence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged that in such circumstances, the judgment and order of the trial Court, as well as that of the High Court, affirming the said judgment, are liable to be set aside. 10. Opposing the submissions made by Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Advocate appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, submitted that the trial Court had considered the evidence of Vimla Bai, PW.1, the mother of the deceased and Radheshyam, PW.3, the brother of the deceased, in coming to a finding that their evidence was sufficient to bring home the guilt of the Appellants under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. 11. Ms. Makhija also reiterated the submissions which had been made before the trial Court regarding the presumption that w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d clearly indicate that the Court shall presume such death as dowry death provided the conditions in Section 113B were satisfied and it would then be for the accused to prove otherwise. 13. Ms. Makhija, thereupon, urged that the order of conviction passed by the trial Court holding the Appellants guilty under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, confirmed by the High Court, did not warrant any interference by this Court. 14. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are inclined to allow the benefit of doubt to the Appellants having particular regard to the fact that except for certain bald statements made by PWs.1 and 3 alleging that the victim had been subjected to cruelty and harassment prior t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 304B IPC, it will not be sufficient to only lead evidence showing that cruelty or harassment had been meted out to the victim, but that such treatment was in connection with the demand for dowry. In our view, the prosecution in this case has failed to fully satisfy the requirements of both Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with the views expressed both by the trial Court, as well as the High Court, and we are of the view that no case can be made out on the ground of insufficient evidence against the Appellants for conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The decision cited by Ms. Makhija in Anand Kumar's case (supra) deals with the propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
