Laxshmi Kant vs State Of M.P.

Conviction,Sentence

U/s 304-B of IPC`,"R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of

fine additional R.I. for 1 year.

Ashok Kumar (PW-2), father of the deceased has stated as under :-",

Shakuntala (PW-3), mother of the deceased has stated as under :-",

Manisha Shukla (PW-4), sister of the deceased has stated as under :-",

Ramgulam Mishra (PW-5) has stated as under :-,

Rama Mishra (PW-6) has stated as under :-,

In the instant case, two letters of deceased, Ex.-D/1 and Ex.-D/2 were admitted by the Ashok Kumar (PW-2), father of the deceased and has",

stated in para 15 as under :-,

Letters Ex.-D/1 and Ex.-D/2 were written by the deceased but in both the letters, deceased has not written a single word about the harassment",

and demand of dowry. In the matter of Dwarika Prasad and another Vs. State of C.G. 2018 (5) C.G.L.J. 80, this Court observed in para 19 which",

reads thus :-,

Necessary ingredients for invoking the provisions of Sections 302, 304B and 306 of the Indian Penal code read with Section 113B of the Indian",

Evidence Act have been discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Narayanamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka (2008) 4 Supreme 228. In,

paragraphs 17 and 18 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus :",

“17. The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 304B, IPC, are as follows:-",

“(1) That the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal;,

(2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage;,

(3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;,

(4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and,

(5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death.â€​,

In the case of unnatural death of a married woman as in a case of this nature, the husband could be prosecuted under Sections 302, 304-B and 306",

of the Penal Code. The distinction as regards commission of an offence under one or the other provisions as mentioned hereinbefore came up for,

consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001 (8) SCC 6331 wherein it was held; (SCC p. 643, paras",

21-22),

“21. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is 'at any time'",

after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are 'in connection with the marriage of the said,

parties'. This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection,

with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example,",

some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not,

enveloped within the ambit of 'dowry'. Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304-B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be,

given in connection with the marriage.,

It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B is to be invoked.",

But, it should have happened 'soon before her death'. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately",

before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The,

legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words 'soon before her death' is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all",

probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the",

dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval which elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death,

is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her,

death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient",

to snuff its cord from the concept 'soon before her death'.â€​,

In the case of Sanjiv Kumar Vs. State of Punjab (2009) 16 SCC 487 it has been held in paras 16-17 which reads thus :-,

“16. Having regard to the evidence on record, the question arises as to whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.",

Under Section 304-B IPC the prosecution is required to establish that the death was caused by any burn or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than,

under normal circumstances, that such death took place within seven years of marriage, and that it is shown that soon before her death the woman",

was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for dowry. It these facts are established by the prosecution, the presumption under Section",

113-B, Evidence Act, 1872, arise and the court shall presume that such person who had subjected the woman to cruelty or harassment in connection",

with any demand for dowry shall be presumed to have cause the dowry death. The presumption that arises in such cases may be rebutted by the,

accused.â€​,

“17. If the accused successfully rebuts the presumption by pleading and proving a probable defence, the presumption under Section 113-B stands",

rebutted and the prosecution must prove its case without the aid of such presumption. It must logically follow that in a case where such presumption,

arises, the evidence, oral, circumstantial or documentary, adduced in defence must be examined by the court with a view to find whether the",

presumption stands rebutted. It is essentially a matter of appreciation of evidence.â€​,

In the instant case, all the witnesses have stated in their evidence that appellant demanded money for his shop, there is no evidence on record to",

establish that the deceased was harassed by the appellant soon before her death. The prosecution has failed to prove all the ingredients required to,

hold an accused guilty under Section 304-B of IPC. On the contrary, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has been successfully",

rebutted by the accused person by pleading and proving a probable defence by the admitted suggestion of the letters Ex.-D/1 and Ex.-D/2, the findings",

recorded by the Court below convicting the accused/appellant under Section 304-B of IPC are not based on due appreciation of the evidence on,

record and therefore findings liable to be set aside.,

As discussed above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appeal is allowed and the accused/appellant is",

acquitted of the charge levelled against him. As the appellant is on bail, he need not surrender and his bail bonds and sureties stand discharged",