Case Note & Summary
The case arises from the death of one Savita, who was married to accused no.1 Sandeep Tirukhe. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons, being husband and in-laws, subjected Savita to cruelty and harassment for dowry, leading to her death by suicide on 28.12.2009. The trial court acquitted all accused of offences under Sections 302, 304B, 498A IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Application No.5645/2012 seeking leave to appeal, and the complainant Bhagwan Kanhere filed Criminal Appeal No.412/2013 against the acquittal. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of PW1 (father) and PW2 (mother), who gave inconsistent statements regarding the demand of dowry. The dying declaration (Exh. 33) did not mention any dowry demand. The letters (Exhs. 34-37) were also not clear on the point. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts for the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The trial court's findings were not perverse and were based on proper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application for leave and the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Leave to Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act does not arise unless the foundational facts of dowry demand and cruelty are established (Paras 1-10). B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304B - Dowry Death - Ingredients - 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 PW1 (father) and PW2 (mother) was inconsistent and lacked corroboration regarding demand of dowry - The dying declaration (Exh. 33) did not mention dowry demand - Held that the trial court's acquittal was not perverse (Paras 11-20). C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Cruelty by Husband or Relatives - The allegations of cruelty must be proved by credible evidence - The prosecution witnesses turned hostile or gave contradictory statements - The letters (Exhs. 34-37) did not establish dowry demand - Held that the acquittal under Section 498A was justified (Paras 21-30). D) Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Demand of Dowry - The prosecution failed to prove any demand of dowry as defined under the Act - The evidence of PW1 and PW2 was not reliable - Held that the acquittal under the Dowry Prohibition Act was proper (Paras 31-35).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 302, 304B, 498A IPC and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was perverse and required interference by the High Court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed Criminal Application No.5645/2012 seeking leave to appeal and dismissed Criminal Appeal No.412/2013, thereby upholding the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act not automatic
- burden on prosecution to prove dowry demand and cruelty
- acquittal not to be reversed unless perverse
- concurrent findings of fact not to be disturbed lightly
