Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of respondents Bhausaheb Barku Datir and Barku Chenda Datir (since deceased) for offences under Sections 498A, 304-B, and 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The deceased Shobhabai died on 25 July 1993 within three years of marriage. The prosecution alleged that the respondents subjected her to cruelty for dowry demands of Rs.10,000, a wrist watch, and a golden ring. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the evidence insufficient. On appeal, the High Court noted that the star witness PW1 (mother) gave inconsistent statements and that the dying declaration (Exhibit 28) did not mention any demand. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty 'soon before her death', a prerequisite for the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The appeal against respondent No.2 abated due to his death. The High Court found no perversity in the trial court's findings and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act - The prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry 'soon before her death'. In the absence of such evidence, the presumption cannot be invoked. The court held that the evidence of PW1 (mother) was inconsistent and lacked corroboration, and the dying declaration did not mention any demand. Hence, the acquittal was upheld. (Paras 6-10)
B) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Interference by High Court - The High Court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not unreasonable. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death, so as to attract the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and sustain conviction under Section 304-B IPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of Respondent No.1. The appeal against Respondent No.2 abated due to his death.
Law Points
- Dowry death
- Section 304-B IPC
- presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act
- cruelty soon before death
- dying declaration
- oral evidence
- acquittal appeal
- interference with acquittal
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (12) 73
Criminal Appeal No.586 of 2001
S.S. Shinde, Surendra P. Tavade
S.S. Hulke (APP for State), Anilkumar Patil (for Respondent No.1)
Bhausaheb Barku Datir and Barku Chenda Datir (deceased)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal in a dowry death case.
Remedy Sought
The State sought conviction of the respondents for offences under Sections 498A, 304-B, and 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted the accused, and the State appealed against the acquittal.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Assistant Sessions Judge, Malegaon) acquitted the respondents in Sessions Case No.9 of 1995 on 28 March 2001.
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death?
Whether the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act could be invoked?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order of acquittal?
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that the evidence of PW1 (mother) and the dying declaration proved the demand and cruelty.
The respondents contended that the evidence was inconsistent and the dying declaration did not mention any demand.
Ratio Decidendi
For the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act to apply, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry 'soon before her death'. In this case, the evidence of PW1 was inconsistent and the dying declaration did not mention any demand. Therefore, the presumption could not be invoked, and the acquittal was justified.
Judgment Excerpts
The star witness of the prosecution case is PW1. Upon a careful perusal of the deposition of PW1, she has stated about unlawful demand of Rs.10,000/-, wrist watch and a golden ring.
The dying declaration (Exhibit 28) does not mention any demand.
The prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death.
Procedural History
The trial court acquitted the respondents on 28 March 2001. The State appealed to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Respondent No.2 died on 23 September 2021, and the appeal abated against him. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 4 December 2021.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 498A, 304-B, 306, 34
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 113-B
