AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 11-08-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 13.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 2nd, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 643 of 2013 arising out of Amarpur (Fulidumar) P.S. Case No. 121 of 2004 whereby and whereunder this appellant, namely Parmanand Yadav, husband of the deceased, has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and in case of default of payment of fine, he is directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased, namely Lakshmi Devi, was married to this appellant. It is alleged that after the marriage, the appellant and his family members subjected her to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry. According to the prosecution, after the appellant obtained employment in the Army, a demand of Rs.2 lakhs was made and, on account of non-fulfilment of the demand, the deceased was subjected to harassment. It is further alleged that the appellant contracted a second marriage with another woman, namely Shita Devi, which caused further mental harassment to the deceased. On 02.10.2004, informant received information that Lakshmi Devi was seriously ill and thereafter, her dead body was allegedly concealed. On the basis of the written information, the case was instituted under Sections 304-B, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the relevant provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses. P.W.-1, namely Niranjan Yadav, supported the prosecution case regarding the marriage and alleged demand of dowry. P.W.-2, namely Kailash Yadav, father of the deceased, also supported the allegation of demand of Rs.2 lakhs and harassment. P.W.-3, namely Naresh Yadav, is the informant and grandfather of the deceased, who also attributed demand of dowry and harassment to the appellant. P.W.-4, namely Smt. Krishna Devi, is the medical witness, while P.W.-5, namely Ranbir Kumar, supported the prosecution regarding the illness and treatment of the deceased. The defence also brought on record documentary evidence relating to the appellant's service in the Army, including communication from the Army authorities regarding his duty.
After hearing the parties and upon consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him in the manner indicated hereinabove.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence on several grounds. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the date of marriage and, consequently, the statutory requirement that the death occurred within seven years of marriage is not established. It is further submitted that the evidence regarding the year of marriage is itself inconsistent, as one of the witnesses stated that the marriage was solemnized in 1989, whereas another version refers to the year 1998. It is further submitted that the evidence regarding the existence of a granddaughter, aged about 13 years, also indicates that the marriage was much prior to the alleged occurrence. It is argued that there is no reliable evidence of any demand of dowry at the time of marriage and the allegation of demand of Rs.2 lakhs is stated to have arisen only after the appellant obtained employment. Learned senior counsel further submits that at the relevant time the appellant was posted in Jammu and Kashmir and was on duty, as is evident from the communication issued by the Army authorities. It is further submitted that the medical evidence does not establish homicidal death and, rather, indicates pregnancy-related complications. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer was not examined during trial, thereby depriving the defence of an opportunity to confront him with the relevant omissions, contradictions and other aspects arising out of the investigation. It is thus argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients for convicting an accused under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.
Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that the evidence of the informant and other prosecution witnesses establishes the demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased and that the circumstances surrounding her death are sufficient to sustain the conviction. It is submitted that no interference is warranted with the judgment of the learned Trial Court.
Having heard the parties and upon consideration of the material on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case requires careful scrutiny. For an offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to establish that (i) the death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such death occurred within seven years of her marriage; and (iii) soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with any demand for dowry. Only upon establishment of these foundational facts can the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be invoked.
In the present case, the prosecution has not established the second essential ingredient with certainty. The evidence regarding the date or year of marriage is inconsistent. P.W.-3, the informant, referred to the marriage as having taken place in 1989, whereas another version refers to the year 1998. The evidence further indicates the existence of a granddaughter aged about 13 years. The aforesaid facts and circumstances goes to show that the marriage of the deceased took place more than seven years before the alleged occurrence.
The evidence regarding demand of dowry and cruelty also does not inspire complete confidence. The allegation of demand of Rs.2 lakhs is stated to have been made after the appellant obtained employment, and there is no reliable evidence establishing any demand of dowry before or at the time of marriage. Further, the prosecution has not been able to establish by convincing evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with any demand for dowry.
The medical evidence also assumes significance. P.W.-4, the medical witness, has not established homicidal death or any ante mortem injury caused by another person. The evidence indicates that the deceased was pregnant, developed complications, was taken for treatment and died while being shifted to Bhagalpur. Thus, the medical evidence does not furnish the necessary link between the appellant and an unnatural or homicidal death.
The defence evidence regarding the appellant's posting also assumes significance. The communication issued by the Army authorities records that the appellant was on duty on 02.10.2004. The said circumstance has not been satisfactorily displaced by the prosecution and creates further doubt regarding the presence of the appellant at the relevant place and time. This Court further finds that in this case, the Investigating Officer has not been examined during trial and the said omission assumes significance in the facts of the present case, as the defence was thereby deprived of an opportunity to bring on record the relevant omissions and contradictions arising out of the investigation.
The cumulative effect of these circumstances creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt and, consequently, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked against the appellant. The prosecution has also failed to prove the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 13.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 2nd, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 643 of 2013 arising out of Amarpur (Fulidumar) P.S. Case No. 121 of 2004 are hereby set aside.
The appellant, above named, is acquitted of the charges and is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond in connection with this case.
Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.