Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Subhash Natthuji Bhandare, was convicted by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Session Trial 97/2002 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500 for the offence under Section 498A IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1,000 for the offence under Section 304B IPC. The appellant's parents, who were co-accused, were acquitted. The case pertains to the death of Babita, who married the appellant in 1997 and died on 17th May 2002 due to consumption of poison. The mother of the deceased, Shakuntalabai (PW1), lodged an oral report on 24th May 2002 alleging that Babita was subjected to mental and physical harassment for a dowry demand of Rs.20,000. PW1 claimed that Rs.5,000 was given on two occasions to prevent harassment. Babita had visited her parental home eight days before the birth anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and narrated that she was harassed by her husband and in-laws for Rs.10,000. Since the amount was not available, Babita was persuaded to return to her matrimonial home. The couple had two daughters, the elder being physically challenged (deaf and dumb) and the younger seven months old. The police registered an offence under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 IPC, investigated, and filed a chargesheet. The trial court framed charges under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The defence was of total denial, suggesting that the family of the deceased had a grievance that the appellant did not provide adequate medical aid to the deceased and the physically challenged daughter. The prosecution examined four witnesses, including PW1 (mother), PW2 (father), PW3 (panch witness), and PW4 (investigating officer). The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the testimony of PW1 and PW2 was inconsistent and unreliable. The dying declaration (Exhibit 28) recorded by the Executive Magistrate did not mention any dowry demand or harassment. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her death, which is a prerequisite for invoking the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court also observed that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was contradictory regarding the alleged dowry demand and the amount paid. Consequently, the High Court held that the conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC was unsustainable and set aside the same, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304B IPC - Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act - The prosecution must first establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. In the absence of such evidence, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked. The court held that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was inconsistent and unreliable, and the dying declaration (Exhibit 28) did not mention any dowry demand. Consequently, the conviction under Section 304B IPC was set aside. (Paras 4-8) B) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband - Section 498A IPC - The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty as defined under the provision. The allegations of harassment for dowry were not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the dying declaration contradicted the prosecution case. The court held that the conviction under Section 498A IPC was unsustainable and set aside the same. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 31-7-2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Session Trial 97/2002 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Dowry death
- Section 304B IPC
- presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act
- cruelty under Section 498A IPC
- burden of proof
- proximate link between cruelty and death
