# Panna Lal & Anr. (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 558
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 7876 of 2017
- **Bench:** Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/panna-lal-anr-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-47623
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
-Section 304 B-Accused-husband, father in
law and mother in law-marriage -3 years
ago-FIR-alleges demand of dowry-death by
hanging-Trial
Court
convicted
all
the
accused-all ingredients of section 304-B IPC
are made out-separate living of deceased
and husband with in laws-beneficiary of
demand of dowry was the husband-failed to
discharge the burden of rebutting the
mandatory statutory presumption of dowry
death against him-father in law and mother
in law are acquitted.
5 All. Panna Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
559
Appeal of accused husband dismissed. (E9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lastly conclusion of trial, as such, in the
event of any truce between the parties, it's
natural and logical result should be, return
of the amount received by the victim from
the state exchequer.

24.

Moreover,
when
there
is
settlement between the parties, there is no
threat for any offensive against the victim
and the entire atmosphere is full of peace,
tranquility and positivity. There cannot be
any good justification to keep that money
for the victim and in all fairness they are
supposed to return back the money to the
State Government. This is the hard-earned
money of innocent tax-payers and any
atrocities against the victims cannot be
exploited to earn and enjoy the money from
the State Government even when there is
compromise between them.

25. Thus, under these circumstances,
where there is compromise/settlement between
the victim and the accused, the same shall be
verified by the concerned Session Judge, SC/ST
Act taking into account the factors enumerated
by the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted above. After
being satisfied the concerned Session Judge
shall ask the informant/victim to deposit the
entire amount received from the "Samaj Kalyan
Vibhag" of the State Government back within
next ten days and then pass a suitable order
verifying the covenants and the signatories of
the compromise.

26. Deposit of the amount received by
the victim belonging to the SC/ST
community, if there is a compromise
between the contesting parties, then the
deposit of the amount back in the State
exchequer shall be sine-qua-non and
condition precedent for any settlement or
truce between the parties without which no
compromise could be verified by the court
concerned.

27. Since all the four proceedings
have already been allowed by this Court,
still the victims are directed to deposit the
amount received by them within next
twenty days in the treasury of Samaj Kalya
Vibhag of respective Session's Division.

28. Let the copy of this judgment be
circulated to all the Sessions Division of
the State so as to comply with the orders in
the same terms and conditions in future.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 558
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7876 of 2017
And
Criminal Appeal No. 7877 of 2017

Panna Lal & Anr. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, Sri Ashwini Kumar
Awasthi, Sri Atharva Dixit

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
-Section 304 B-Accused-husband, father in
law and mother in law-marriage -3 years
ago-FIR-alleges demand of dowry-death by
hanging-Trial
Court
convicted
all
the
accused-all ingredients of section 304-B IPC
are made out-separate living of deceased
and husband with in laws-beneficiary of
demand of dowry was the husband-failed to
discharge the burden of rebutting the
mandatory statutory presumption of dowry
death against him-father in law and mother
in law are acquitted.
5 All. Panna Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
559
Appeal of accused husband dismissed. (E9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dagdu & ors. Vs St. of Mah.(1977) 3 SCC 68;

2. Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs St. of Karn.
(2001) 2 SCC 577;

3. Kans Raj Vs St. of Punjab & ors. (2000) 5 SCC
207;

4. Pathan Hussain Basha Vs St. of Andhra
Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 594;

5. Hira Lal & ors. Vs St. (Govt. of NCT), Delhi
(2003) 8 SCC 80

6. Pawan Kumar Vs St. of Har. (1998) 3 SCC 309
para-6;

7. Kans Raj Vs St. of Pun. (2000) 5 SCC 2079
para-9:

8. Heera Lal Vs St. (Govt. Of NCT), Delhi (2003)
8 SCC 80 para-8;

9. Bakhsish Ram Vs St. of Pun. (2013) 4 SCC
131 para-14

10. Suresh Kumar Vs St. of Har. (2013) 16 SCC
553 in para 27

11. Sher @ Pratap Vs St. of Har. AIR 2015 SC
980

12. Satyaveer Singh Vs St. of Pun.AIR 2001 SC
2828

13. Devi Lal Vs St. of Raj. (2009) 1 SCC
(Criminal) 785

14. Andhra Pradesh Vs Raj Gopal Asawa AIR
2004 SCW1566

15. Bhateri Devi Vs St. of Har. 2011 (Crl.) 463

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.)

1. The instant Criminal Appeal No.
7876 of 2017 has been preferred on behalf
of the appellant Panna Lal and another and
Criminal Appeal No. 7877 of 2017 has
been preferred on behalf of Bhure Lal alias
Shyam Manohar against the judgment and
order dated 1.12.2017 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No. 1, Mainpuri in Special Trial No.
136 of 2004 (State Vs. Pannal Lal and
others) arising out of Case Crime No. 106
of 2001 P.S. Bhogaon, District-Mainpuri
whereby the appellants were convicted and
sentenced for the offence under section
304-B of I.P.C and were punished with
imprisonment of 10 years each and for the
offence
under
section
498-A
were
convicted and punished with imprisonment
of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each
and in default of payment of fine additional
imprisonment of six months was awarded
to be undergone. For the offence under
section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act each of
the accused was convicted and sentenced
with imprisonment of six months and a fine
of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of
fine the additional imprisonment of one
month was awarded to be undergone.

2. Both the aforesaid appeals are
against the judgment and order dated
1.12.2017, therefore, both the appeals are
disposed of by the common judgment.

3. The brief facts giving rise to both
these appeals are that the informant Ram
Singh, son of Munshi, resident of village
Semalpur, P.S. Vishunpur, District Kannauj
moved the written information with the
police
station
concerned
with
the
allegations that on 29th March 2001 at 5.00
O'clock he received the information in his
village that his daughter Anita had been
killed by hanging by her in-laws. He
reached to village Shivai and saw his
daughter hanged with Sari and her fatherin-law, mother-in-law and his son-in-law
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were absconding from the house. His
daughter was got married about 3 years
back and endowment was made by him at
the time of marriage as per capacity; but
the father-in-law and mother-in-law being
not satisfied, made additional demand of
Gold Chain, T.V., and Almirah in dowry.
The informant was not capable to fulfill
these demands, consequently his daughter
was subjected to cruelty and due to this
reason his daughter was killed and the body
was hanged. On this written information
the case crime no. 106 of 2001 was
registered under section 498-A, 304-B of
IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act with the Police
Station Bhogaon, District-Mainpuri.The
Investigating
Officer
after
having
concluded the investigation filed charge
sheet against all the accused persons under
sections 498-A,304-B and 3⁄4 D.P. Act on
which the cognizance was taken by the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
and
after
considering that the offence is triable by the
court of sessions, the case was committed
by the CJM concerned to the court of
sessions for trial.

4. The trial court summoned all the
accused persons and framed charges
against all the accused persons under
sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and 3⁄4 D.P.
Act and the alternate charge under section
302 IPC was also framed against all the
accused persons. The charge was read over
and explained to all the accused persons
who denied the charge and claimed to be
tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution to prove
the charge against all the accused persons
in documentary evidence adduced written
information, Exb. Ka-1, Marriage card,
Exb. Ka-2,Site plan of place of occurrence,
Exb. Ka-3, Charge sheet against Panna Lal
and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati, Exb.
Ka-4, Charge sheet against Bhure Lal @
Shyam Manohar, Exb. Ka-5, Inquest report,
Exb.Ka-6, letter to Chief Medical Officer,
Exb. Ka-7, Specimen seal, Exb. Ka-8, letter
to RI, Exb. Ka-9, Photo Nas, Exb. Ka-10,
Post mortem report, Exb. Ka-11 and check
FIR, Exb. Ka-11-A.

In ocular evidence examined
PW-1, Ram Singh, PW-2, Ganesh, PW-3,
Hukum Singh, PW-4 Lala Ram, PW-5,
Om Prakash, Naib Tehsildar, PW-6
Retired Doctor S.K. Seth, PW-7, Krishna
Kumar Chaturvedi.

6. The statement of accused persons
under section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded.
All the accused persons denied the
incriminating circumstances in evidence
against them and stated that deceased had
no issue, with this reason, she was mentally
disturbed and consequently had committed
suicide. On behalf of Panna Lal and Smt.
Maya Devi @ Mayawati it was also stated
that both of them were residing separate
from their son Bhure lal @ Shyam
Manohar.

7. On behalf of accused persons in
defence evidence examined DW-1, Bhoj
Raj and DW-2, Ram Kishan.

8. Trial court after hearing the
submissions of learned counsel for both the
parties had convicted all the accused
persons vide judgment and order dated
1.12.2017 for the offence under sections
304-B, 498-A of IPC and section 4 of D.P.
Act and sentenced as stated above.

9. Aggrieved with this impugned
judgment the Criminal Appeal No. 7876 of
2017 was preferred on behalf of the
appellants Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi
@ Mayawati and Criminal Appeal No.
5 All. Panna Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
561
7877 of 2017 was preferred on behalf of
the appellant Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar
on the grounds that the impugned judgment
and conviction order passed by the court
below is against the weight of the material
evidence on record and the impugned
judgment and order is bad in the eyes of
law. In view of the facts and circumstances
of the case as well as the evidence available
on record, the punishment awarded by the
court below is too severe. Accordingly,
prayed to allow these criminal appeals and
set aside the impugned judgment and order
of conviction.

10. I have heard the submissions of
learned counsel for the appellants and
learned AGA for the State and perused the
relevant materials brought on record.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that the allegations made in
the FIR in regard to alleged demand of
dowry are general in nature. There is no
evidence in regard to harassment caused to
the deceased for non fulfillment of alleged
demand of dowry. In inquest report there is
no whisper in regard to alleged demand of
dowry. As per autopsy report the cause of
death of deceased was asphyxia as a result
of ante mortem hanging. There is no
external injury on any part of the body.
Hyoid bone is intact. It was a case of
suicide committed by the deceased herself
who was disturbed because of having no
issue. From the evidence on record no
offence under section 304-B of IPC is made
out against the accused persons. As per
prosecution
case
the
marriage
was
solemnized 3 years before the date of
occurrence. There is no evidence in regard
to exact date of marriage. In fact, the
marriage of deceased was solemnized in
the year 1993 and 7 years had elapsed from
the date of occurrence. Moreover, the
appellant Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi
@
Mayawati
both
father-in-law
and
mother-in-law respectively of deceased
were residing separate from their son Bhure
Lal @ Shyam Manohar. On behalf of
accused persons this defence case was also
put to all prosecution witnesses in cross
examination and the defence evidence was
also adduced. Moreover, all the accused
persons in their statement under section
313 of Cr.P.C., have taken this plea of
separate living of father-in-law and motherin-law from their son and also the plea of
committing suicide of deceased herself on
account of being disturbed because of no
issue to herself.

Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants has further submitted that there
is no evidence on record in regard to
harassment for non-fulfillment of demand
of dowry soon before the death. Moreover
no proper opportunity of the hearing was
afforded to the appellants on the quantum
of sentence in view of section 235(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code.

In support of these submissions
learned counsel for the appellants has relied
upon the following case laws:-

(1) Dagdu and Others Vs. State
of Maharastra (1977) 3 SCC 68;

(2) Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs.
State of Karnataka (2001) 2 SCC 577;

(3) Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab
and others (2000) 5 SCC 207;

(4) Pathan Hussain Basha Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC
594; and

(5) Hira Lal and others Vs. State
(Govt. of NCT), Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 80.

12. Learned AGA on behalf of State
per contra submitted that the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the court below is based on the
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proper appreciation of evidence on record
and passed the proper judgment which
bears no illegality. Moreover, the accused
persons
were
afforded
complete
opportunity of hearing by the court below
on the quantum of sentence.

13. On behalf of prosecution to prove
its case in ocular evidence examined PW-1
Ram Singh, PW-2 Ganesh, PW-3 Hukum
Singh as witness of the fact.

PW-1
Ram
Singh
is
the
informant and the father of the deceased.
This witness in his statement says that his
daughter Anita was married with Bhure Lal
@ Shyam Manohar about 3 years ago from
the date of occurrence in the year 1998.
The father-in-law and mother-in-law and
husband of his daughter made additional
demand of dowry of Gold Chain, T.V, and
Almirah and for non fulfillment of the same
his daughter was subjected to cruelty. His
daughter used to make complaint of the
same to him and her mother. His daughter
Anita also made complaint of the same to
his son also. On the occasion of Holi on the
very year of the occurrence he has gone to
the in-laws house of his daughter and asked
them not to torture his daughter for the
alleged demand of dowry but on this,
reiterated the aforesaid demand of dowry.
After that he left the in-laws house of his
daughter and on 29.3.2001 he received
information from Dharmendra Singh, son
of Suraj Singh of village Bhadaura at 5- O
clock that his daughter had been killed by
her in-laws. On this information he reached
along with family members to village Sevai
and saw the dead body of his daughter
hanged with the Sari with the hook of
Veranda. He moved the written information
with the police station concerned Exb. Ka2. He also gave the invitation card of
marriage to the Investigating Officer which
is Exb. Ka-2. He was also the witness of
the inquest report. The dead body of his
daughter was got down from the hook of
Varandah by Darogaji. Many persons of the
locality were present there. Panna Lal and
Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar were not
residing separately. It is wrong to say that
his daughter committed suicide because of
having no issue to her.

PW-2 Ganesh is the real brother
of the deceased. This witness in his
statement says that his sister was married 3
years before the date of occurrence with
Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar. Whenever,
his sister had come from her in-laws house
to parental house, she told in regard to
demand of Gold Chain, T.V., Almirah and
also told that all the accused persons had
beated her for non fulfillment of the same
demand. On receiving the information from
Dharmendra
Singh
on
29.3.2001
accompanied his parents, his cousin brother
Hukum Singh and Ram Shankar of the
village to reach village Sevai to the in-laws
house of his sister and saw the dead body
of his sister hanged with Sari with the hook
of balcony. The dead body was got down
by Darogaji. It is wrong to say that his
sister was mentally disturbed because of
having no issue and committed suicide.

PW-3 Hukum Singh is the
cousin brother of the deceased. He also
gave the same kind of statement as that of
PW-1 Ram Singh and PW-2 Ganesh and
corroborated the prosecution story. This
witness also stated that the complaint in
regard to the demand of dowry and
subjecting to cruelty to Anita was made by
Anita to her parents in his presence. Anita
has all to say, told in regard to alleged
demand of dowry to him about two months
ago from the date of occurrence when she
had come to her parental house. It is wrong
to say that Anita along with her husband
5 All. Panna Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
563
resided separate from Panna Lal in another
house.

14. On behalf of prosecution to prove
the cause of death and papers relating to
inquest
report
examined
PW-5
Om
Prakash, Naib Tehsildar proved the
inquest report Ka-6 and papers relating to
inquest report Exb. K-7 to Ka-10. This
witness in his statement also says that all
the panch witnesses have told him that the
death of the deceased was caused by
hanging her with Sari with the hook of
balcony.

15. To prove the autopsy report of
deceased examined PW-6 retired Doctor
S.K. Seth. This witness in his statement
proves the post mortem report of the
deceased Exb.Ka-11 and says that the
cause of death of deceased is asphyxia as
a result of ante mortem hanging and
ante mortem injury ligature mark 30.0
cm x 3.0 cm on around neck except on
right side where it is intercepted behind
right ear mark is obliquely placed
following the line of mandable. The
hyoid bone was intact (not broken).

16. At this stage provision of section
304-B of IPC read with section 113-B of
the Evidence Act is necessary to be
considered.

Section 304-B of IPC reads as
under:-

304-B. Dowry death:-

"1.Where the death of a woman is
caused by any burns or bodily injury or
occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven yeas 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 of dowry, such death shall be
called"dowry death", and such husband or
relative shall be deemed to have caused her
death.

Explanation- For the purpose of
this sub-section "dowry" shall have the
same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961(28 of 1961) same
meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition.

(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."

The Hon'ble Apex Court has
indicated the ingredients of section 304-B
of IPC in the following cases as under:-

1. Pawan Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana (1998) 3 SCC 309 para-6;

2. Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab
(2000) 5 SCC 207 para-9:

3. Heera Lal Vs. State (Govt. Of
NCT), Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 80 para-8; and

4. Bakhsish Ram Vs. state of
Punjab (2013) 4 SCC 131 para-14.

(A) that the married women had
died otherwise than normal circumstances;

(B) As the death was within 7
years of marriage; and

(c)
the
prosecution
has
established that there was cruelty or
harassment by her husband or near relative
of her husband in connection with demand
of dowry soon before the death.

17. The Hon'ble apex Court held in
Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
(2013) 16 SCC 553 in para 27 that any
death occurring otherwise than under
normal circumstances can be homicidal,
suicidal or accidental.

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in
Sher @ Pratap Vs. State of Haryana AIR
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2015 SC 980 held the word "soon" before
death not to be interpreted in terms of six
months or year but it is necessary to
indicate domain of dowry should not be
stale. It should be continuing because of
death under section 304-B of IPC.

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held
in Satyaveer Singh Vs. State of Punjab
AIR 2001 SC 2828 held that there should
be nexus between death of wife and the
dowry related to harassment inflicted on
her.

20. The Hon'ble Apex court held in
Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 1
SCC (Criminal) 785 under section 304-B
"soon" before death depends upon the facts
and circumstances of each case.

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raj Gopal
Asawa AIR 2004 SCW1566 the definition
of dowry is not restricted to agreement or
demand for payment of dowry before or at
the time of marriage; but also includes
demand made subsequent to marriage.

22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Suresh Kumar (Supra) in para 30 held if
the ingredients of section 304-B of IPC are
made out, the accused is deemed to have
caused the death of women; the accused is
entitled to rebut this statutory presumption
of having caused death. The presumption
under section 113-B is the presumption of
law which is mandatory.

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held
in Suresh Kumar (Supra) in para 34 a
Bench of three Judges of this Court has
elucidated the requirement of section 304-B
of IPC read with section 113-B of the
Evidence Act and contrasted it with section
113-A of the Evidence Act in paras 27 to
30 in Shamnsaheb M. Multtani (Supra)
held that if the ingredients of section 304-B
of IPC are made out, the court has no
option but to presume that the accused has
caused the dowry death unless the accused
disapproves it. It is a statutory compulsion
of the Court. However, the accused has to
be rebut it. He can discharge this burden
either by elucidating answers. through the
cross examination of prosecution witness or
by adducing defence evidence or by both.

Section 113-A of the Evidence
Act says that in almost similar conditions
of dowry death the court may presume
having regard to the circumstances of the
case that as the suicide has been abeted by
his husband or the relative of the husband.

24. The provisions of Section 113-B
of the Evidence Act are relevant to mention
herein below:-

"113B.
Presumption
as
to
dowry death:-

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, any demand for dowry,
the court shall presume that such person
had caused the dowry death."

25. As per prosecution case the
daughter of the informant Anita was
married with Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar
in 1998, three years ago from the date of
occurrence. In this regard in documentary
evidence invitation card of marriage
Exb. Ka-2 has been proved by PW-1 Ram
Singh. In this marriage invitation card the
date of marriage is shown as 28.4.1998.
The name of bride is Anita, daughter of
Ram Singh Rajpoot, resident of Semalpur,
5 All. Panna Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
565
Amaltabad (Kannauj) and the name of
bridegroom is Shyam Manohar son of
Panna Lal, resident of Rewai (Mainpuri).
All the three witnesses of fact PW-1 Ram
Singh, PW-2 Ganesh, PW-2 Hukum Singh
who are father, real brother and cousin
brother stated that Anita was married with
Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar before three
years ago on the date of occurrence.

On behalf of the accused persons
this plea has been raised by giving
suggestion to the prosecution witness that
the deceased was married with Bhure Lal
@ Shyam Manohar in 1993 more than 7
years ago from the date of occurrence. This
plea is also taken by all the accused persons
in their statement under section 313 of
Cr.P.C.

On behalf of defence the defence
witnesses DW-1 Bhoj Raj and DW-2 Ram
Kishan also say that the accused Bhure Lal
was married with Anita in the year 1993. In
view of the ocular evidence adduced on
behalf of prosecution and also the
documentary
evidence
marriage
invitation card of Smt. Anita it is proved
that the marriage of Smt. Anita and
Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar had
solemnized on 28.4.1998. The marriage
invitation card is not questioned by the
defence counsel in the cross examination
from the prosecution witness, as such, on
this point the balance of the evidence tilts
in favour of the prosecution. On behalf of
the accused persons no documentary
evidence has been adduced to rebut the date
of marriage being 28.4.1998.

26. So far as the death of deceased
Anita is concerned, from the ocular
evidence as well the medical evidence
itself well proved that the death of Anita
was not caused in normal circumstances,
rather it was homicidal or suicidal.

All the prosecution witnesses
have deposed the evidence that the death of
Anita was homicidal. As per medical
evidence DW-6 Dr. S.K. Seth says that the
cause of death was asphyxia as a result of
ante mortem hanging. This witness also
says that the ligature mark was 30.0 cm. X
3.0 cm around the neck. This mark was
obliquely placed following the line of
mandable. This ligature mark was not in
V shape to establish the cause of suicide.
So far as the hyoid bone being intact is
concerned, PW-6 in his statement deposed
that
trachea
was
congested.
The
bloodfroth was in trachea. This witness in
his cross examination says that he has not
written the cause of death in post mortem
report throttling or strangulation because
death was caused due to hanging.

In inquest report the cause of
death as per the information of panch
witnesses has been mentioned asphyxia
due to hanging with the Sari by the hook
of balcony.

PW-5
Om
Prakash,
Naib
Tehsildar proves the inquest report and the
papers of the inquest report and also says
that all the Panch have stated to him that
the body of the deceased was hanged
with the hook of balcony tied with Sari,
as such, the death of deceased Anita was
an unnatural death. It was not a death of
normal circumstances.

27. So far as the demand of dowry
and non fulfillment of the same causing
cruelty to deceased soon before the death is
concerned, all the witnesses have stated
that the accused persons had made demand
of Gold Chain, T.V., and Almirah after
solemnizing the marriage and for non
fulfillment of the same Anita was subjected
to cruelty. All these witnesses have stated
whenever Anita had visited her parental
house from her in-laws house she has made
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint in regard to making alleged
dowry by her in-laws and had told in regard
to the same to PW-1 Ram Singh, PW-2
Ganesh, PW-3 Hukum Singh who are
father, real brother and cousin brother of
the deceased respectively. PW-1 Ram
Singh has also stated at one instance at the
occasion of Holi in the very year of
occurrence, when he had visited the in-laws
house of her daughter and asked her inlaws not to harass and torture her daughter
for the alleged demand of Gold Chain, T.V
and Almirah. All the accused persons
refused to desist of their demand of dowry.
This witness also says that he has shown
his incapability to fulfill the aforesaid
demand and left his daughter in-laws house
and thereafter on 30.3.2001 he received
information from Dharmendra Singh who
told him that his daughter has been killed
by
her
in-laws.
This
fact
is
also
corroborated with the opinion of Panch
witnesses in the inquest report.

28. It is pertinent to mention here
that in the inquest report among all the
Panch witnesses none is from the in-laws
side. This entry in the inquest report also
corroborates the ocular evidence in
regard to absconding of inmates of inlaws house. This subsequent conduct of
the inmates of in-laws house being not
present at the place of occurrence, more
so, when the dead body of Anita was
hanged with hook of balcony tied with
Sari becomes relevant to prove the guilty
mind of the inmates of in-laws house.
This subsequent conduct of the inmates
of in-laws house is relevant under section
8 of the Evidence Act.

29. Therefore, the prosecution has
been successful to prove this fact that the
death of deceased Anita took place in
matrimonial house within 7 years of
marriage was unnatural. There is also
evidence that soon before the death there
was demand of Gold Chain, T.V. Almirah
and for non fulfillment of the same
deceased was subjected to cruelty and
harassment. If for the sake of argument,
death of deceased is taken to be suicidal,the
possibility of demand of dowry and non
fulfillment of the same, subjecting the
deceased for cruelty and harassment can
not be ruled out. The death of deceased
whether homicidal or suicidal has a nexus
with the harassment and cruelty connected
with the demand of dowry. As such, all the
ingredients of section 304-B of I.P.C., are
made out. From the evidence on record
and legal presumption of law which is
mandatory shall be taken against the
accused persons in regard to committing
dowry death.

30.

This
statutory
mandatory
presumption under section 113-B of the
Evidence Act is rebutable. The burden of
proof shifts upon the accused persons to
disprove that it was not a dowry death.

31. On behalf of accused persons in
their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.,
this plea has been taken that Panna Lal and
Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati who are
father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
deceased both were residing separate from
their son Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar and
this plea is also taken that deceased was
having no issue therefore she was mentally
disturbed, for the same reason, she
committed suicide. On behalf of defence
counsel of the accused persons this
suggestion was also given to all the
prosecution witnesses that deceased was
having no issue was disturbed and sad and
consequently she committed suicide. The
suggestion of separate living of Panna Lal
and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati has been
5 All. Panna Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
567
given by the defence counsel to all the
prosecution witnesses.

32. On behalf of the accused persons
to rebut this presumption in defence
evidence have been examined DW-1 Bhoj
Raj in his statement says after two years of
marriage Pannal Lal began to reside
separate with his son Bhure Lal @ Shyam
Manohar. Anita had no issue, so her temper
was irritating and she committed suicide.
This witness also says that at the time of
occurrence he was at his agricultural field
and was not present at the place of
occurrence.

PW-2 Ram
Kishan
in his
statement says that Bhure Lal @ Shyam
Manohar along with his wife had been
residing separate after two years of
marriage with his parents. Anita had no
issue, so she had become ill temper and
with this reason she committed suicide.

33. So far as defence plea of separate
living of Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi @
Mayawati, father-in-law and mother-in-law
respectively is concerned, this plea has
been taken by the accused persons in their
statement under 313 Cr.P.C., and had also
elicited to all the prosecution witnesses
during cross examination. Both the defence
witnesses DW-1 Bhoj Raj and DW-2 Ram
Kishan had deposed this fact.

34. But so far as this plea that
deceased for having no issue was ill
tempered and had committed suicide is not
found cogent and trust-worthy. As per
prosecution evidence the deceased was
married with Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar
3 years ago from the date of occurrence. If
after solemnization of marriage deceased
was not conceived and she was disturbed
for
having
no
issue,
under
such
circumstances,
deceased
might
have
consulted some Gynecologist in regard to
treatment of having no issue. As of man
ordinary prudence her husband might have
taken her to some doctor, more so, if her
condition was so depressed that she had
become ill tempered for having no issue.
No such documentary evidence in regard to
treatment of having no issue and consultant
prescription in regarding to having no issue
had been adduced on behalf of the accused
persons which would have been the best
evidence in their possession to prove this
plea. Under such situation, the ocular
evidence adduced on behalf of the defence
can not be relied upon on the touch stone of
preponderance of possibilities.

35. Here it is also noteworthy that in
view of defence evidence the father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the deceased were
residing separate from their son and so far
as the alleged demand of dowry of Gold
Chain, T.V., and Almirah is concerned, the
direct beneficiary of this demand was the
husband of the deceased, as such, the
burden to proof will shift upon the husband
of the deceased to disprove the legal
presumption of dowry death. The husband
of the deceased Bhure Lal @ Shyam
Manohar has miserably failed to discharge
the burden of rebutting the the mandatory
statutory presumption of dowry death
against him.

The Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Bhateri Devi Vs. State of
Haryana 2011 (Crl.) 463 held that husband
is the beneficiary in case of dowry demand,
hence he is liable for dowry death and is to
give explanation as to why the death
occurred.

36. Learned counsel for the appellants
has also submitted that the trial court has
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
imposed the sentence of 10 yeas for the
offence under sections 304-B of IPC
without recording any reason and without
affording any opportunity of hearing to the
appellants convict on the quantum of
sentence.

Section 304-B of IPC provides
minimum sentence for 10 years and the
maximum sentence may be extended upto
life imprisonment. The trial court has
awarded the sentence of 10 years for the
offence under section 304-B of IPC which
is less than the maximum as provided under
section 304-B of IPC.

So far as the opportunity of
hearing under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C., is
concerned, the trial court had given
opportunity of hearing to the convict on the
quantum of sentence and it was argued on
behalf of the convicts that it is the first
offence of the accused persons and have no
criminal antecedent and accused is a young
person and none is to look after his old
parents and after taking into consideration
the statements made by the counsel of
convicts and also Additional District
Government Counsel for the prosecution
the trial court passed the order of sentence
after having recorded reasons for the same.
Therefore, this plea raised on behalf of
learned counsel for the appellant is not
sustainable in law and the same is
discarded.

37. In view of re-appreciation of the
evidence on record the judgment and order
of conviction of the accused Panna Lal and
Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati for the
offence under section 304-B,498-A and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act deserves to be set
aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal
No. 7876 of 2017 (Panna Lal and another
Vs. State of U.P.) is hereby allowed. The
appellants Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi
@ Mayawati are hereby acquitted from the
charges levelled against them under section
304-B,498-A and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. The personal bonds and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court concerned in compliance of
provisions of section 437-A of Cr.P.C, be
furnished by them before the trial court.

38. So far as the Criminal Appeal No.
7877 of 2017 is concerned, in this appeal
the appellant Bhure Lal @ Shyam
Manohar is the husband of the deceased,
whose liability is to protect and save the
life and liberty of his wife but the appellant
has failed to do so, therefore, the present
appeal lacks merit and deserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed. The conviction and sentence
awarded to the present appellant is hereby
affirmed. The appellant is in jail. He is
directed to serve out the remaining
sentence as has been awarded by the trial
court by judgment and order dated
1.12.2017.

39.

Let
the
copy
of
the
judgment/order be certified to the court
concerned for necessary information and
follow up action.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 568
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7960 of 2019

Rinku @ Prempal ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: