The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that mere bald assertion of dowry demand will not suffice, there should be consistent evidence regarding the nature of demand, whether it was in cash or in kind. If there was the allegation of demand in cash, then what was the amount and who made the demand, need to be stated. Further, such demand should have been made soon before the death. The need for consistent and cogent evidence in this regard is necessary for the reason that such deaths, legally termed as dowry death, occur usually within the confines of the matrimonial home, and in the absence of any direct evidence, statutory presumption is raised under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the sister of the informant was married to Kapil Ravidas. After marriage, they started demanding Rs 40,000 and when the demand was not fulfilled, her husband and in-laws started torturing her. Furthermore, he received information that his sister was admitted to the hospital and when he went there, he saw his sister lying dead on the cot. Thereafter, the case was registered under Section 304 B of the IPC against the appellant and in-laws. The trial court convicted the Appellant under Section 304B of the IPC. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court laid down the essential ingredients required to prove the charge under section 304B IPC and they are as follows
a. the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances;
b. such death must have occurred within seven years of marriage;
c. soon before her death, a woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband;
d. such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with the demand for dowry.
The Hon’ble Court observed that the demand for dowry must be consistently demonstrated, whether it was in the form of cash or in kind. A simple declaration of the dowry demand is insufficient. The amount and the person making the demand must be disclosed if there was a claim of a cash demand. It should have been made much sooner before the death. In this context, consistent and persuasive evidence is required because these deaths—officially known as "dowry deaths"—typically take place inside the boundaries of the matrimonial home, and Section 113 B of the Evidence Act establishes statutory presumption in the absence of any direct evidence. Such a statutory presumption is a departure from the general principles of criminal jurisprudence of presumption of innocence of the accused, therefore, it has to be carefully applied.
The court relied upon the judgment titled State of Rajasthan v. Teg Bahadur & Others.
The court noted that no doubt that the death occurred within 7 years of marriage and was occurred because poisoning caused by organo phosphorus pesticide. However, there exists contradictory evidence on the point of dowry demand and harassment of the deceased.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the allegation of dowry death can’t be accepted. The court set aside the judgement of conviction and sentence.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Kapil Ravidas V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 845 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. D.K. Prasad, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. S.K.Tiwary, Special P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
