Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by Radhakisan Kachru Khandagale (appellant No. 1) and his father Kachru Raghunath Khandagale (appellant No. 2) challenging their conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 351 of 1996. The prosecution case was that the deceased Meerabai, daughter of complainant Uttam Ganpat Chavan, was married to appellant No. 1 on 13th February 1996. After marriage, she went to live with her husband and his family, which included appellant No. 2 (father), the mother (original accused No. 3), and brother (original accused No. 4). Initially, for about one month, she was treated well, but thereafter all accused persons started harassing her for money, demanding that she bring money from her parents, and threatening to kill her if she did not. The deceased would narrate this harassment whenever she visited her parents' home. The complainant visited the accused's house with respectable persons to advise them, but they did not listen. On 1st September 1996, appellant No. 2 came to the complainant's house and demanded Rs. 1,000/-. When the complainant expressed inability, appellant No. 2 took away an iron chain and neck rope (Jote). On 3rd September 1996, the complainant received a message that his daughter had consumed poison and was admitted to Ghati Hospital. She died on 4th September 1996. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the appeal, appellant No. 2 died, and the appeal abated against him. The main legal issue was whether the conviction of appellant No. 1 under Section 304-B IPC was sustainable. The appellant argued that there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment soon before death in connection with dowry demand. The State supported the conviction. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony did not specify any particular act of cruelty or harassment by appellant No. 1. The alleged demand of Rs. 1,000/- and taking away of articles were not proved to be in connection with dowry. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, particularly that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. Consequently, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act could not be invoked. The court also set aside the conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appeal was allowed, and appellant No. 1 was acquitted of all charges.
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 by the accused soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. In the absence of such evidence, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked. The court held that the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses did not establish any specific act of cruelty or harassment by the appellant soon before the death of the deceased. The demand for money was not shown to be in connection with dowry, and the incident of taking away iron chain and neck rope was not proved to be a dowry demand. Therefore, the conviction under Section 304-B IPC was set aside. (Paras 5-10) B) Criminal Law - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 4 - Demand of Dowry - For an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the prosecution must prove that the accused demanded dowry. The court found that the alleged demand of Rs. 1,000/- and taking away of articles were not proved to be in connection with marriage or as a consideration for marriage. Hence, the conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was also set aside. (Paras 5-10) C) Criminal Procedure - Abatement of Appeal - Death of Appellant - Where an appellant dies during the pendency of an appeal, the appeal abates as against that appellant. The court noted that appellant No. 2 died during the pendency of the appeal, and accordingly, the appeal stood abated against him. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is sustainable in the absence of evidence establishing that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction of appellant No. 1 Radhakisan S/o Kachru Khandagale under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is set aside. Appellant No. 1 is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled. The appeal against appellant No. 2 Kachru S/o Raghunath Khandagale stands abated due to his death.
Law Points
- Dowry death
- Section 304-B IPC
- presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act
- proximate cause
- soon before death
- cruelty
- harassment
- demand of dowry
- abatement of appeal
- acquittal
