Sec.498 A, 304 B – death within 9 months of marriage – burnt – the woman was subjected to cruelty soon before her death – prosecution proved its case – trial court and High court rightly convicted the accused – No grounds to interfere – Apex court dismissed the appeal =
whether the accused has committed
the dowry death of the woman. (This means that the presumption can be
raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-
B IPC.)
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his
relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for
dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.”
19. In the present case, it is not in dispute that marriage took place on
20th June, 1995. Manju, wife of the accused Pradeep Kumar got burnt on 1st
March, 1996 and died on 12th March, 1996 within nine months of her
marriage. Death of Manju was caused by burns i.e. otherwise than under
normal circumstances. It has already been seen that soon before her death
she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of
dowry. All the five ingredients were proved by the prosecution. Under
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act when a question arises whether a person
committed dowry death and it is proved that the death of woman took place
within seven years of marriage; such death took place not under normal
circumstances and soon before the death deceased was subjected to cruelty
or harassment by such person for or in connection with any demand for
dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
The prosecution having successfully proved the dowry death, the Trial Court
and the High Court correctly held the accused Pradeep Kumar guilty of the
offence under Section 304B.
20. Section 498-A IPC reads as follows:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the 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 also be liable to
fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of 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.”
21. In the present case, on the basis of the evidence of Subedar
Sapattar Singh (PW-8) and dying declaration, it can be clearly concluded
that the Trial Court and the High Court rightly held that the accused
Pradeep Kumar had subjected Manju to harassment as defined under Clause (b)
of explanation to Section 498-A.
22. In view of the aforesaid observation and finding, we find no ground
to interfere with impugned judgment. In absence of any merit, the appeal is
dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Appellant is directed to be taken
into custody forthwith to serve the remainder period of sentence.
Discussion
Comments are closed.