Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhagwansingh Govindsingh Kathar, the father of the deceased Payal, filed an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar, District Nanded in Sessions Case No. 44 of 2012. The respondents (original accused) were acquitted of offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant alleged that his daughter Payal was married to respondent No.2 Ganeshsingh in 2011, and soon after marriage, the accused demanded Rs.30,000/- and subjected her to cruelty and harassment. On 06.02.2012, Payal died while undergoing treatment for burn injuries. The appellant lodged a report, leading to registration of Crime No.20 of 2012. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The trial court, after examining prosecution witnesses, held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges and acquitted the accused. The appellant challenged the acquittal on grounds that the trial court ignored evidence and wrongly disbelieved the prosecution case. The High Court, per Justice Abhay S. Waghwase, examined the evidence. The court noted that the death was due to accidental burns while cooking, and the medical evidence did not suggest homicidal death. The court found that the prosecution witnesses, including the father (PW-1) and mother (PW-2), gave vague and inconsistent statements regarding the demand of dowry and harassment. There was no independent witness to support the allegations. The court held that the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 could not be invoked because the prosecution failed to establish that the death was unnatural and that there was cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death. The court also held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the appellate court should not interfere with a well-reasoned acquittal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act - For presumption to apply, prosecution must establish that death was unnatural and occurred within seven years of marriage, and that there was cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death. In the instant case, the death was due to accidental burns while cooking, and there was no evidence of dowry demand or harassment soon before death. Held, presumption not attracted and acquittal upheld. (Paras 7-10) B) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband or Relatives - Section 498-A IPC - Ingredients - Prosecution must prove willful conduct of cruelty or harassment. In this case, evidence of PW-1 (father) and PW-2 (mother) was vague and inconsistent regarding demand of Rs.30,000/- and ill-treatment. No independent witness supported the allegations. Held, prosecution failed to prove cruelty. (Paras 7-9) C) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 372 CrPC - Scope - Appellate court can interfere only if findings are perverse or unreasonable. Trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse. Held, no interference warranted. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar in Sessions Case No. 44 of 2012 dated 30.01.2018 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act arises only if death is unnatural and occurs within seven years of marriage
- and there is evidence of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death. Acquittal can be interfered with only if perverse or unreasonable.
