Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat appealed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.05.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2001. The respondents (original accused) were acquitted of offences under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution case was that the deceased Rasilaben was married to accused No. 2 Prakash alias Babo Govindbhai Chovatiya only three months prior to the incident. During the short married life, all four accused along with a juvenile accused Nitaben taunted the deceased regarding household work, cooking and not bringing dowry, subjecting her to mental cruelty. On 24.08.2001, in a farm shed owned by the accused at village Kharchiya, all the accused allegedly strangled Rasilaben with a cotton rope causing her death. To conceal the homicide, accused No. 1 Govindbhai Mavjibhai inflicted six injuries resembling snake bites on the area between the big toe and ankle of the right foot of the deceased using an iron needle and placed a handkerchief over her mouth to hide the ligature marks on the neck, falsely projecting the death as one due to snake bite. The trial court acquitted all accused. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses, including the father (PW-1) and brother (PW-2) of the deceased, gave inconsistent statements and turned hostile. The medical evidence did not conclusively establish homicide; the ligature marks were not typical of strangulation, and the injuries could be consistent with snake bite. The court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal should not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is strengthened by acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Indian Penal Code - Dowry death - Section 304-B IPC - Proof of demand of dowry and cruelty - The prosecution must establish 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 the father (PW-1) and brother (PW-2) was inconsistent and lacked corroboration, and the medical evidence did not support the case of homicide. Hence, the acquittal was upheld. (Paras 2-9) C) Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Circumstantial evidence - The prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused. The ligature marks on the neck were not consistent with strangulation, and the injuries resembling snake bites were not conclusively proved to be antemortem. The trial court's finding that the death could be due to snake bite was plausible. (Paras 3-8) D) Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 2 - Demand of dowry - The prosecution could not establish any demand of dowry or harassment soon before the death. The witnesses turned hostile or gave contradictory statements. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was perverse and liable to be set aside in appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondents.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- presumption of innocence
- dowry death
- Section 304-B IPC
- Section 498-A IPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 120-B IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Section 2
- circumstantial evidence
- benefit of doubt
