Phool Singh vs State of M.P.

R.S. Garg, J.

The accused person stand convicted for commission of offence u/s 304-B IPC and have been awarded 7 years R.I. Being aggrieved by the conviction and award of sentence, the appellant have preferred this appeal.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Geetabai, wife of appellant No. 1 committed suicide at about 10 a.m. on 27th June, 1998. When the matter was reported to the police, offence was registered and after completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed.

The prosecution case, in brief is that deceased Geetabai daughter of Panna Lal was married to the accused Phool Singh accused in the year 1988. The appellant No. 1 is the husband and the appellant No. 2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The prosecution case proceeds and states that on 27.6.90, the village Chowkidar Lalaram s/o Hazarilal lodged a report to the police that he was informed by one Pappu that his Bhabhi (sister-in-law) had committed suicide. The police made usual investigation and filed the charge sheet.

The accused person denied the guilt and interalia pleaded that they never made any demand of dowry, they did not harass the deceased; they were never cruel to the diseased and there could have been any other reason for commission of suicide by her. The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B.

After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial Court acquitted the accused person of charges framed u/s 498-A but awarded 7 years sentence after finding them guilty u/s 304-B. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant have filed this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that acquittal of the appellants u/s 498-A would remove the very foundation on which the appellants could be convicted for commission of the offence punishable u/s 304-B.

On the other hand, Shri Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate-submits that independent of acquittal u/s 498-A, the appellants were rightly convicted for commission of the offence u/s 304-B.

Section 498- A of IPC reads as under:-

Whoever, being the husband or he relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be liable to fine.

Explanation : For the purpose (if this section, ''cruelty'' means:

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman: or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

The thrust of the legislature in enacting section 498 - A is that when the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty, they shall be punished. Section 498-A had been enacted and brought in the statute book so that the helpless woman is saved from the un-human/inhuman behavior of her husband and his relatives. The cruelty as defined in the explanation appended to section 498-A takes into its sweep the wilful conduct, which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health or (he woman or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand. The learned trial Count, in its wisdom has acquitted the accused persons of charges u/s 498-A. Their acquittal would mean that the learned Judge did not find that the husband or relatives of the husband subjected the woman to cruelty either by their wilful conduct which was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or of causing harassment to the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand.

Section 304-B of IPC reads as under :-

Where the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise 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 or her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ''dowry death'' and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation :- For the purposes of this sub-sections ''dowry'' shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

According to Section 384-A where the death is caused by burns on bodily injury or occurs otherwise then under normal circumstances within seven years of the marriage, then the death shall be called ''dowry death'' provided it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative or her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry. The word ''dowry'' according to the explanation shall have the same meaning as is given in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The law provides that whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years, but may extend to imprisonment for life.

Before one can be held guilty for commission of the offence u/s 304-B, the prosecution is required to prove that the death was by burns, or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of the marriage and, the prosecution is also obliged to prove 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 for dowry. Unless the both aspects are proved beyond shadow of doubt, a person facing the charge u/s 304-B cannot be convicted. What is to be noted u/s 304-B is that the prosecution is obliged to prove that soon before the, death by burns or bodily injury or unnatural death within seven years of the marriage the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Section 498-A, as observed above, also refers to the cruelty. The foundation for conviction of a person, u/s 498-A in case the wife is alive and u/s 304-B in case of the dowry death is not similar but the same. The prosecution, in each of the case is bound to prove that the husband or the relative of the husband subjected such woman to cruelty for making a demand of dowry. Section 304-B is aggravated from of Section 498-A. In a charge u/s 498-A IPC, the aggrieved party is alive and is available to give her statement in the Court, but in a case of Section 304-B the aggrieved party is dead, and the circumstances alone would lead to the guilt of the accused. If the cruelty extended by the husband or any relative of the husband is not proved for recording a conviction u/s 498-A, the very foundation on which the conviction u/s 304-B can be recorded is removed. In absence of a finding that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in relation to demand of dowry by the husband or relative of the husband within 7 years of the marriage, the accused cannot be convicted for commission of the offence u/s 304-B.

Shri Gupta, learned Govt. Adv. submits that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove that the demand of dowry was made; the deceased was subjected to cruelty and the evidence would lead to the only conclusion that the accused persons are answerable to charge u/s 304-B IPC. True it is that if sufficient material is available on record, the accused persons could be convicted for commission of the offence u/s 304-B, but unfortunately the State or any other person aggrieved did not choose to challenge the acquittal of the accused recorded u/s 498-A. If the evidence was insufficient for recording conviction u/s 498-A, its sufficiency would always be doubted for recording a conviction u/s 304-B. Non-challenge to the acquittal u/s 498-A makes the said finding final and absolute. As the finding stands, it is proved that the accused persons i.c. the husband and the mother-in-law did not subject the demand to any cruelty for making any illegal demand within seven years of the marriage. In view of the finding recorded by the learned trial Court which cannot be interfered with by this Court in appeal tiled by the accused, I have no option but to allow the appeal and commit the accused persons.

The appeal is allowed. The conviction recorded and the sentence awarded to the accused persons are set aside. The accused persons are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.