When offence of dowry death is not made out?

PW-1, Laxmi Prasad Lonia, uncle of the deceased acknowledged that
at the time of marriage, the Respondents had agreed that whatever would
be given would be acceptable to them. Silver ornaments, sofa, bed, TV,
Godrej Almirah, watch and utensils were given voluntarily. Thereafter,
general allegations have been made that dowry was being demanded
without any mention of the nature of demand much less any singular act of
cruelty or harassment described motivated by the desire for extraction of
dowry. Rs.5,000/- was demanded to ensure employment for the deceased
as an Anganbadi Worker, which cannot be construed as a dowry demand.
There is no evidence of any specific dowry demand. Likewise, PW-2,
Shriram Lonia, father of the deceased also deposed in general terms that
dowry was being demanded without mentioning any specific items or much
less the nature of cruelty or harassment let alone any specific instance with
regard to the same. He also acknowledged that at the time of marriage, no
dowry was demanded and he gave gifts voluntarily. Likewise, PW-3,
Godavaribai, mother of the deceased also deposed in very general terms
not citing any instance of harassment or cruelty much less any nature of the
same or that in proximity to death. Other witnesses also have talked of
Rs.5,000/- having been demanded to ensure employment for the deceased
as an Anganbadi Worker. Even other witnesses on which reliance has been
placed have not spoken of any specific nature of cruelty or harassment
much less the nature of the dowry demand and have not cited a single
instance of harassment or cruelty for dowry.
8. We therefore do not find any reason to differ with the conclusions of
the Additional Sessions Judge that there was complete want of evidence
with regard to any cruelty or harassment for purposes of dowry, much less
any specific instance cited or the nature of such cruelty or harassment
mentioned let alone any specific demand for dowry made. There is
complete want of evidence with regard to any occurrence related to a
demand for dowry in proximity to death. The ingredients of Section 304B
IPC having not been fulfilled, we find no reason to interfere with the
acquittal.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2001
State of Chhattisgarh

v
 Mahendra Kumar Lonia, 
Dated:12/4/2016
Citation: 2016 CRLJ(NOC)237 CHH

1. The State assails acquittal of the Respondents of the charge under
Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC dated 11.8.2000 by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.50 of 1999.
2. Deceased Sunita Lonia, wife of Respondent No.1 was married on
27.4.1996 and died in her matrimonial house in unnatural circumstances on
28.6.1998. The post mortem report, Exhibit P-15 by PW-10, Dr. K.K. Sao
reported tongue protruded out from mouth partially burnt, the chest towards
left breast and skin was burnt, the skin on the thigh and centre of stomach
was burnt and had split leading to the intestine spelling out, the anus was
open and there was no carbon particle found in the trachea. The burns
were opined to be post mortem, but no definite opinion could be given with2
regard to the cause of death which was estimated to be 24 to 72 hours
earlier. The Additional Sessions Judge arrived at the conclusion that there
was no evidence with regard to demands for dowry and cruelty or
harassment for that purpose and thus granted acquittal.
3. Learned Counsel for the State/Appellant submitted that the Trial
Judge erred in holding that there was no evidence with regard to demands
for dowry. Reliance was placed on the deposition of PW-1, Laxmi Prasad
Lonia, uncle of the deceased, PW-2, Shriram Lonia, father of the deceased
and PW-3, Godavaribai, mother of the deceased along with PW-4, Shanti
Prakash, PW-5, Bajrang and PW-6, Sanjay Prakash Lonia, cousins of the
deceased. It was submitted that a cumulative assessment of their evidence
establishes demands for dowry and therefore the Trial Judge was not right
in concluding that the prosecution had not proved prima facie demands for
dowry and thus the question of shifting the burden onto the accused did not
arise. No other argument has been made to assail the acquittal.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has opposed the appeal
questioning acquittal submitting that the judgment calls for no interference
as the Trial Judge has adequately discussed the evidence and arrived at a
reasoned conclusion regarding absence of any evidence whatsoever
regarding demands for dowry.
5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.
6. To sustain a conviction under Section 304B IPC the prosecution is
required to establish a prima facie case that death was unnatural, it was
within 7 years of the marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment, such cruelty or harassment was soon before death and that the
cruelty and/or harassment was for purpose of dowry. If any one of these
ingredients are missing, Section 304B IPC cannot be invoked. To apply the
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act again it is necessary3
for the prosecution to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty
or harassment in connection with a demand for dowry, which again has to
be in proximity to time of death.
7. PW-1, Laxmi Prasad Lonia, uncle of the deceased acknowledged that
at the time of marriage, the Respondents had agreed that whatever would
be given would be acceptable to them. Silver ornaments, sofa, bed, TV,
Godrej Almirah, watch and utensils were given voluntarily. Thereafter,
general allegations have been made that dowry was being demanded
without any mention of the nature of demand much less any singular act of
cruelty or harassment described motivated by the desire for extraction of
dowry. Rs.5,000/- was demanded to ensure employment for the deceased
as an Anganbadi Worker, which cannot be construed as a dowry demand.
There is no evidence of any specific dowry demand. Likewise, PW-2,
Shriram Lonia, father of the deceased also deposed in general terms that
dowry was being demanded without mentioning any specific items or much
less the nature of cruelty or harassment let alone any specific instance with
regard to the same. He also acknowledged that at the time of marriage, no
dowry was demanded and he gave gifts voluntarily. Likewise, PW-3,
Godavaribai, mother of the deceased also deposed in very general terms
not citing any instance of harassment or cruelty much less any nature of the
same or that in proximity to death. Other witnesses also have talked of
Rs.5,000/- having been demanded to ensure employment for the deceased
as an Anganbadi Worker. Even other witnesses on which reliance has been
placed have not spoken of any specific nature of cruelty or harassment
much less the nature of the dowry demand and have not cited a single
instance of harassment or cruelty for dowry.
8. We therefore do not find any reason to differ with the conclusions of
the Additional Sessions Judge that there was complete want of evidence
with regard to any cruelty or harassment for purposes of dowry, much less
any specific instance cited or the nature of such cruelty or harassment
mentioned let alone any specific demand for dowry made. There is
complete want of evidence with regard to any occurrence related to a
demand for dowry in proximity to death. The ingredients of Section 304B
IPC having not been fulfilled, we find no reason to interfere with the
acquittal.
9. The appeal is dismissed.
 Sd/- Sd/-
 (Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy)
 CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Gopal

Print Page