Ramniwas And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The accused persons have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.11.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in

S.T. No.126/95, whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 304-B of the IPC in alternate Sections 302/34 of

the IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- (each) with default stipulation.

It is not in dispute that the deceased/Urmila Bai was daughterin-law of the appellant No.2. She was married with Ramniwas (appellant No.1) one

year before the incident. On 22.6.1994 at village Padwa, dead body of the deceased was found in the well of Shiv Ram. After postmortem of the

deceased, doctor gave opinion that her death was homicidal in nature. During investigation, the police found that the appellants caused death of the

deceased due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Hence, offences under Sections 302 and 304-B of the IPC have been registered against the

appellants. In similar provision, charge sheet was filed against them.Â

After committal of the case, the trial Court framed the charge under Section 304-B of the IPC and in alternate Section 302/34 of the IPC against

the appellants. They abjured guilt and pleaded innocence. They claimed that they have been falsely implicated by the police.

The trial Court found that the deceased was killed within one year of her marriage. Her death was unnatural. As per opinion of concerned doctor,

she died due to throttling. When her dead body was found in the well, her both hands were tied with the clothes (piece of Saree). Similarly, her one leg

was also tied by the clothes. Other symptoms also indicate that her death was intentionally caused by the appellants. The appellants knew the fact that

dead body of the deceased was in the well but they had falsely spread a humor that the deceased eloped with someone from the village. After

considering all the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and in

alternate under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.

Aforesaid findings have been challenged by the appellants on the ground that without any evidence, they were wrongly convicted by the trial Court.

The trial Court had not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. There is no eyewitness of the incident to prove that the deceased was tortured

by her in-laws. Hence, the appellants have prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and they be acquitted from the charge levelled against

them.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the State has submitted that the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable

under Sections 304-B of the IPC and awarded a proper sentence.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The point for determination is that whether the appellants were rightly convicted under the charges levelled against them.

It is not in dispute that the deceased was married with Ramniwas, who is son of the appellant no.2. Her dead body was found on 22.6.1994. Her

marriage was performed one year prior to the incident.

Pramod (PW-8) is neighbour of the appellants. He deposed that deceased Urmila was residing with the appellants. One day at about 8 a.m. the

appellant Leela Bai @ Lola Bai came to his house and informed that Urmila Bai (since deceased) eloped from her home with someone. Thereafter,

on the request of appellant No.2, he went to maternal house of the deceased with her to intimate about missing of the deceased.

Similarly, Shiv Ram (PW-5) deposed that he heard about the deceased that she eloped from the village with someone. He also stated that on the

next day, the dead body of the deceased was found in his well. He saw that her both hands and leg were tied with saree. Pramod (PW-8) deposed

that he also heard that dead body of the deceased was found in the well of Shiv Ram (PW-5). These facts were also narrated by Govind Ram (PW-

6).

As per police inspector Dinesh (DW-1), on 22.6.1994, Bhagirath father of the appellant no.1 informed to Police Station, Chhipawad about the

death of Urmila Bai. Thereafter, merg intimation (Ex.D/2) was registered by him.

Devi Singh (PW-1) deposed that in his presence, police came to the spot and pulled out the dead body of deceased from the well. Her both hands

were tied by saree. Dead body’s Panchnama (Ex.P/1) was prepared before him. Photographs (Ex.P/2 to P/4) were taken by the photographer.

Thereafter, autopsy of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Ravi Garg (PW-7).

As per Dr. Ravi Garg, age of the deceased was about 19 years and at the time of postmortem, the dead body of deceased was in swelling

condition. Her eyes were coming out and her tongue was in between the teeth and in cutting condition. Stool was coming out from her anus. Her nails

were bluish. Her both hands and one leg were tied by the piece of saree. Dr. Ravi Garg (PW-7) clearly stated that death of the deceased was caused

due to asphyxia. She was not died due to drowning in water. The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature within 24-48 hours from the

postmortem. In cross-examination, his testimony is found unshaken. Dr. Garg ruled out the possibility that the deceased died due to an accident nor

she died due to drowning in the well. We are also in agreement with his opinion that body of the deceased was thrown in the well after causing her

death.

Shera Bai (PW-4) (mother of the deceased) has stated that when her daughter (deceased) came to her matenral house, she usually complaint

against her in-laws. She narrated that they were demanding a motor for the well and a new bicycle from her. Therefore, Shera Bai convinced them

that she would fulfill their demand. After sometime, the appellants had sent her daughter-in-law back to her maternal home and also threatened them

that they would perform second marriage of Ramnivas and killed Urmila (deceased). As per the statement of Shera Bai (PW-4), the deceased was

also not inclined to return back to her in-laws house. She was worried about her life from the appellants. Even then, with the assurance of her in-laws,

the deceased was came back to her in-laws house.

Shera Bai (PW-4) also deposed that in her presence, Ramnivas (husband of the deceased) had beaten the deceased. One day, the appellant No.2

had informed about missing of Urmila Bai (deceased). Thereafter, she heard about the incident (death of her daughter). Shera Bai (PW-4), in her

cross-examination has explained that all the demands were occurred after the marriage and it was in the knowledge of Ramnivas (husband of the

deceased). Hence, the testimony of Shera Bai (PW-4) is found reliable.

In case of Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2015) 4 SCC 215. It has been held as under:-

“The statement of family members of the deceased lady cannot be discarded on the ground that they are relatives and are interested witnesses, till

a contradiction is shown in their deposition or cross-examination. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Ss. 3 and 4.â€​

Govind (PW-6), who is neighbour of the appellants and real uncle of the appellant No.1. He was residing adjacent to the appellants’ house. He

deposed that commonly, he heard quarrel of the appellants with the deceased for motor pumps. The appellants abused the deceased. After knowing

about the death of the deceased, he also heard that Urmila Bai was eloped from the village. Such fact was spread over in the village. In

crossexamination, Govind (PW-6) has explained that he had some property dispute with the appellants but we are not inclined to refuse his evidence

on the said grounds alone because villagers are the best witnesses about the conduct and behaviour of the appellants with the deceased and the

dispute between the appellants and the deceased. The testimony of Govind (PW-6) has also been corroborated by his wife Urmila (PW-9). Both the

witnesses have clearly mentioned that before getting the dead body of the deceased from the well, appellant No.2 spread a humor against her

daughter in-law relating to her character.

Now the question arises that if the appellants were known about the missing of the deceased, they were bound to report the matter to the police,

but no missing report has been lodged by the appellants. It is not a case wherein the deceased committed suicide. In her postmortem report, it is

established that her death was caused by throttling and at that time she was helpless. Her both hands and legs were tied up by Saree when she died

and thereafter, her dead body was thrown in the well. None of the appellants have explained how the body of the deceased was found in the well of

third person (Shiv Ram) and why they were not worried about the missing of the deceased nor Ramnivas (husband of the deceased)Â proceeded to

take an action to find out his wife. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the versions of Govind (PW-6) and his wife Urmila (PW-9). From the

testimony of Govind (PW-6), Urmila (PW-9) and Shera Bai (PW-4) mother of the deceased, it is duly established that the deceased was killed for

non-fulfillment of dowry demand. Her death was caused due to throttling and after tied her hands and legs so that she was unable to save herself, her

dead body was thrown in the well to suppress the reason of her death. All the facts and circumstance clearly indicates that the appellants have caused

her death and spread a wrong information to their villagers about her missing.

Section 304 of IPC described dowry death as under:-

Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs 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 for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry deathâ€, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have

caused her death.

Explanation.â€"For the purpose of this sub-section,

“dowryâ€​ shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

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.

In other words Section 304 (B) of IPC would be applicable if cruelty or harassment was inflicted not only by the husband even in all his relatives

for, or in connection with demand for dowry, immediately, preeding the death by bodily injury. If the girl died in abnormal circumstance within seven

years of the marriage in such circumstance the husband or the relatives as the case may be, will be deemed to have caused her death and will be

liable to punishment as held in case of Vadde Rama Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1990 CRLJ 1666. There shall be presumption against them

(accused) as held in case of Pathan Hussain Basha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2012 SC 3205.

Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act also described that:-

“When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has

been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person

had caused the dowry death any explanation can for the purposes of this section “dowry death was have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of

IPC.â€​

In case of G.V. Siddhramesh Vs. State of Karnataka (2010) 3 SCC 152 it has been held that there must be material to show that soon before the

death of a woman such woman subjected the cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with demand of dowry. Then or only a presumption can be

drawn that a person has committed the dowry death of a woman.

In case of Kailash Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2007 SC 107, it has been held that the words “soon†before in Section 113-B Indian

Evidence Act cannot be limited by fixing time limit. It is left to be determined by the Courts depending upon the facts and circumstance of the case.

In the present case, the hands and legs of the deceased were tied up when she was alive. She died due to throttling on her neck and her body was

thrown in the well. These acts also establish that soon before her death, the deceased was tortured by the appellants for non-fulfillment demand of

dowry. There is evidence on record that the appellant no.2 informed the villagers and parents of the deceased that she eloped with another person.

The acts of appellants indicate that they wanted to show that they do not know about the deceased. Such type of behaviour of the appellants shows

that they behaved in cruel manner with the deceased during her life time.

In case of Dinesh Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 12 SCC 532, the Supreme Court has held that:-

“The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment only attracting the provision of Section 113-B

Evidence Act. It was further held that:-

The expression “soon before†is a relative term as held by this Court, which is required to be considered under the specific circumstances of each

case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time of allotment. (see also Kanas Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC

207Â and Dhian Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 759) 25. In view of above discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere in the

impugned judgment. In case of Rajinder Kumar (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that, all ingredients for invoking mandatory presumption of

guilt of accused under Section 304-B read with Section 113B, Evidence Act, 1872 established against appellant. Appellant unable to rebut the same.

Conviction for dowry death confirmed. The trial Court has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the appellants. Accordingly, appeal

filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed.

The appellants are on bail. They are directed to surrender immediately before the concerned trial Court to undergo the remaining jail sentence,

failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate action.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance along with its record.