Case Note & Summary
The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the appellants, Dhanraj s/o Narhari Yedale and Chhayabai w/o Narhari Yedale, challenging their conviction and sentence by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2002. The appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine for Section 498-A, and imprisonment for life with fine for Section 302. The prosecution case was that the deceased Sangita, daughter of Das Maroti Thombre, was married to accused No.1 Dhanraj on 03.06.2011. At the time of marriage, Rs.15,000/- and household articles were given. On 06.06.2001, when Sangita visited her parental home with her husband, accused No.1 demanded Rs.20,000/- for house construction, which her parents could not fulfill due to recent marriage expenses. On 07.06.2001, while returning to Tuljapur on a motorcycle, accused No.1 allegedly caused Sangita to fall from the motorcycle and proceeded ahead. Sangita died on the spot. The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of dowry and that the death was homicidal. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses, including the parents of the deceased, did not fully support the case. The medical evidence did not conclusively prove that the death was caused by the fall from the motorcycle. The court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and that the prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304B IPC - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act - The prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. In the present case, the evidence of demand of Rs.20,000/- was not corroborated and the alleged incident of fall from motorcycle was not proved as homicidal. Held that the presumption under Section 113B cannot be invoked without establishing the foundational facts. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence - The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The medical evidence did not support the theory of homicidal death, and the conduct of the accused was not inconsistent with innocence. Held that the conviction under Section 302 IPC is unsustainable. (Paras 16-20) C) Criminal Law - Cruelty - Section 498-A IPC - Demand of Dowry - The alleged demand of Rs.20,000/- was made only once and was not proved to be a persistent demand. The parents of the deceased did not support the prosecution case fully. Held that the offence under Section 498-A is not made out. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 26.03.2023 passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2002 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act not automatic
- requires proof of demand of dowry soon before death
- Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain pointing to guilt
- Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses create reasonable doubt
- Acquittal if prosecution fails to prove homicidal death
