Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Sopan Bhausaheb Gunjal (husband), Sitabai Bhausaheb Gunjal (mother-in-law), and Bhausaheb Kisan Gunjal (father-in-law), were convicted by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, for offences under Sections 302, 304B, and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, seven years for dowry death, and three years for cruelty. The victim, Kalpana, married appellant No.1 on 2.5.2005. She died by consuming poison on 20.12.2005, within seven months of marriage. The prosecution alleged that the appellants demanded a motorcycle and cash as dowry and subjected Kalpana to cruelty. The dying declaration (Exh. 28) recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate stated that Kalpana consumed poison due to her husband's illicit relationship and harassment by her mother-in-law, but did not mention any dowry demand. The father of the deceased (PW3) testified about dowry demands, but his testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by other witnesses. The trial court convicted the appellants, but the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC, particularly the demand of dowry 'soon before death'. The dying declaration did not support the dowry demand, and the oral evidence was contradictory. The court also noted that the acquitted accused No.2 (brother of appellant No.1) was given benefit of doubt, and the case against the appellants was similarly weak. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants. The bail application was disposed of as infructuous.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304B IPC - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act - The prosecution must first prove that the death occurred within seven years of marriage and that there was a demand of dowry soon before death. In the absence of credible evidence of dowry demand, the presumption cannot be invoked. The court found that the dying declaration and oral evidence did not establish any demand for dowry or cruelty, leading to acquittal. (Paras 1-21) B) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Evidentiary Value - Section 32 of Evidence Act - A dying declaration must be consistent and reliable. In this case, the dying declaration (Exh. 28) did not mention any demand for dowry or harassment, and there were contradictions with the oral testimony of witnesses. The court held that the dying declaration could not be the sole basis for conviction. (Paras 10-15) C) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband or Relatives - Section 498A IPC - Proof of Cruelty - The prosecution failed to prove any willful conduct or harassment of the deceased by the appellants. The allegations of cruelty were vague and not supported by independent evidence. The court set aside the conviction under Section 498A IPC. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 304B and 498A IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record, particularly the dying declaration and testimony of witnesses.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nashik in Sessions Case No.156 of 2006 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Bail Application No.1577 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act arises only if dowry death is proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish ingredients of Section 304B IPC
- Necessity of proof of demand of dowry soon before death
- Inconsistencies in dying declaration and oral evidence lead to benefit of doubt
