Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 3rd February 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 154 of 1991, whereby the sole accused Suresh Ganesh Jadhav was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and alternatively under Section 304-B IPC. The prosecution case was that the deceased Chaya, daughter of PW-1 Dhurpadabai and PW-2 Daulatrao, was married to the accused about ten months before her death. At the time of marriage, her parents had given Rs.21,000/- as dowry. After marriage, Chaya resided with the accused and occasionally visited her parents. During her visits, she allegedly informed her parents that the accused was demanding additional dowry and was ill-treating her. On 11th June 1991, Chaya died due to burns. The prosecution alleged that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of additional dowry or cruelty soon before death, and that the death was not proved to be homicidal. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and other witnesses. It found that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding demand of additional dowry was vague and inconsistent. The medical evidence showed that the death was due to burns, but the prosecution could not establish that the accused was responsible. The court noted that the deceased had visited her parents' house a few days before the incident but did not complain of any harassment. The High Court held that the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC were not satisfied as there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act could not be invoked. The court also observed that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act - The prosecution must prove that the death was caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, and that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative in connection with demand of dowry. In the absence of evidence of cruelty or harassment soon before death, the presumption under Section 113-B cannot be invoked. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Interference with Acquittal - The appellate court should not lightly reverse an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court's appreciation of evidence, if plausible, should not be disturbed. (Paras 16-18) C) Evidence Act - Presumption as to Dowry Death - Section 113-B - The presumption is rebuttable and arises only when the foundational facts of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand are established. Mere unnatural death within seven years of marriage does not automatically attract the presumption. (Paras 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and alternatively under Section 304-B IPC was proper, and whether the prosecution proved the ingredients of dowry death beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna dated 3rd February 1996 in Sessions Case No. 154 of 1991.
Law Points
- Dowry death
- Section 304-B IPC
- presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act
- cruelty
- harassment
- demand of dowry
- unnatural death
- seven years of marriage
- acquittal appeal
- interference with acquittal
