Allahabad High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction In Dowry Death Case
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the conviction of a husband in case of dowry death and rejected the defence that the woman could have caught fire during sprinkling seasoning for vegetables while cooking. The High Court noted that the signs of the deceased saving herself had also not been found.
The criminal appeal before the High Court was filed by the appellant husband against the judgment convicting him under Section 498-A I.P.C and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and further convicting him under Section 304-B I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
The Single Bench of Justice rajnish kumar stated, “Thus, considering the material also, which includes the recovery memo, in which no sign or material of sprinkling of seasoning (Chauk Lagana) for vegetables has been found, because the wok (Karahi) and vegetables were found kept separately near clay stove (Chulha) and burn thatch. It is also noticed that signs of saving herself by the deceased has also not been found because if she would have caught fire during sprinkling seasoning for vegetables, then she would have cried and tried to save her and the family members present at home or the neighbours could have reached to save her.”
Advocate Nalini Jain represented the Appellant while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant got married about a year prior to the date of incident and in the marriage, dowry was given as per his capacity. The appellant i.e. the husband of the deceased and her mother-in-law had been demanding Rs.5000 since two months prior to the date of the incident. This came to the knowledge when the daughter of the complainant visited his house. The complainant himself went to the house of his daughter to bring her and he told the appellant and the mother-in-law that he was not in a position to give Rs 5000 upon which he was threatened that if he would not give the money, he himself would be responsible for any consequences and he was not allowed even to meet her.
On June 11, 1991, the father was informed him that his daughter had been burnt. He was confident that his daughter had been burnt by the in-laws and husband due to the non-fulfillment of demand of money. The FIR of the incident was lodged. The father-il-law stated that his daughter-in-law had died due to burning from a fire in thatch. It was stated that the deceased was preparing food at and as soon as she sprinkled seasoning for vegetables in the wok, the thatch was burnt and since she was wearing Nylon Saree, she was badly burnt. As per the post-mortem report, the death was caused by asphyxia and shock resulting from ante-mortem injuries. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused-appellant under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC.
Reasoning
The Bench explained that for the presumption that the death is dowry death punishable under Section 304-B IPC, the death of a married woman should be due to any burn or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry. If all the said ingredients are proved, the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act can be drawn. “This presumption can be drawn when all the initial ingredients of dowry death are proved beyond reasonable doubt”, it added.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the the deceased was a married woman. She died due to burn injuries within seven years of her marriage. Thus, it was to be seen as to whether it had been proved that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband soon before her death for demand of any dowry or not.
The Bench noticed that PW-1(deceased’s father) had admitted the demand for dowry, not only on the basis of hearsay evidence of his daughter but also from his own complaint. Though in the cross-examination, he resiled from his statement in examination-in-chief, but his evidence in examination-in-chief was consistent with the prosecution case lodged on the basis of his written complaint. The Bench further took note of the absence of any sign or material of sprinkling of seasoning for vegetables or signs of saving herself by the deceased. In light of such facts and circumstances and on account of non-production of any witnesses, i.e., the Investigating Officer or Doctor, the Bench held that it could not be said that the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
It was further noticed that there was a significant financial disparity between the appellant’s family and the family of deceased, on account of which there was all possibility of being win over by them. However, even in the cross-examination, the father had admitted that one Mastana Mishra had told him about the harassment and cruelty being inflicted upon the deceased due to dowry demand. The only plea taken in the cross-examination was that there was some enmity with the family of the deceased, therefore, he had done so but no proof of any enmity could be given or shown even before this Court.
Thus, in light of the fact that the presumption of dowry death had rightly been drawn and the same could not be rebutted by the appellant by any cogent evidence, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Jai Shankar Shukla v. State of Up (Neutral Citness: 2025: AHC-LKO: 42866)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Nalini Jain, Ashish Mishra Atal, Brijesh Kumar, Manjusha Kapil, Ramakar Shukla, Surendra Pratap Srivastav
Respondent: Government Advocate