Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Amravati, in Sessions Trial No.50 of 1999, acquitting four accused—Vitthabai, Neetu, Ramesh, and Pradeep Nimbhekar—of offences under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased, Kusum, was married to accused Pradeep on 7.12.1989. After about one and a half months of marriage, the accused allegedly began demanding a fridge and motorcycle. Kusum complained to her father Gopal Bharati (PW1), her brother Gajanan (PW3), and family friend Ramrao Gawande (PW4) about ill-treatment. On 3.10.1990, when her father went to fetch her for Diwali, accused Neetu allegedly told him that Kusum could only be taken after the demanded articles were provided. The same night, Kusum committed suicide by burning herself. The father lodged a report, and after investigation, the accused were charged. The trial court acquitted them, prompting the State to file the present appeal. The State argued that the prosecution had proved dowry demand and cruelty through the testimony of PW1, PW3, and PW4, that the death occurred within one year of marriage, and that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The respondents contended that the evidence was inconsistent and insufficient to establish the ingredients of the charged offences. The High Court scrutinized the evidence. It noted that the statements of PW1, PW3, and PW4 were not consistent; neither the father nor the brother implicated the husband, Pradeep, in any demand or cruelty; and PW4, the alleged mediator, contradicted himself in cross-examination, admitting he had earlier stated wrongly about the demand for a Hero Honda motorcycle. The court found that the presence of the husband with the deceased at a family function where complaints were made made it unnatural for the father and brother not to have confronted him. The evidence did not demonstrate that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any dowry demand. Consequently, the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC were not established, and the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act did not arise. The appeal was without merit and was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of all accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Trial - Dowry Death - Ingredients of Offences - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304B, 498A, 34; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113B - The court analyzed the prosecution evidence and found that the witnesses' accounts were inconsistent regarding the demand of dowry articles like fridge and motorcycle. The evidence did not establish cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with any dowry demand. The deceased's father and brother did not implicate the husband in the alleged demands, and the mediator's testimony was contradictory. Hence, the essential ingredients of Sections 304B and 498A were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act was not attracted. Held, that the trial court's acquittal was justified as the prosecution failed to prove its case, and the appeal was dismissed. (Paras 8-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 IPC given the evidence of alleged harassment for dowry and the unnatural death within one year of marriage?
Final Decision
High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistencies in evidence fatal to prosecution case
- Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act not attracted if basic ingredients of Section 304B IPC are not established
