# Ram Ji & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 346
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 6710 of 2011
- **Bench:** Nalin Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-ji-anr-v-state-of-u-p-52591
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death and
Cruelty - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 304-B/34, 498-A/34, The Dowry
prohibition Act, 1961- Section 4 - Essential
ingredients
of
Section
304-B
IPC,
including "soon before her death" and "in
connection with demand of dowry -
Presumption under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act, 1872 - There must be
existence of a proximate and live link
between the effect of cruelty based on
dowry demand and the death concerned -
General and Omnibus allegations cannot
be manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the husband are forced to
undergo trial - Allowing prosecution in the
absence
of
clear
allegations
against
relatives of the husband would simply
result in an abuse of the process of law -
Burden on the accused is not as onerous
as that which lies on the prosecution - In
a criminal trial the defence evidence
stands on the same footing as that of the
prosecution.(Para - 72,76,93,101,104)

Deceased, married to the appellant - was
allegedly harassed for dowry (Rs. 50,000 and a
scooter) - She was brought to her parental
house in an injured state - was tortured and
burnt by pouring hot mustered oil, which
resulted into the burning of her right hand and
leg - died the following day - death of deceased
occurred while she was staying with her own
family members. (Para - 4 to 6 ,104)

HELD: - Accused husband (Ram Ji) and motherin-law (Sumari Devi) only may be held liable for
the offence under Section 498-A and Section 4
D.P. Act for causing cruelty to the deceased and
also for making an indirect demand of dowry from
the family members of the deceased through her
but the evidence on record is not sufficient to
record the conviction of the appellants under
Section 304-B/34 I.P.C. as the essential ingredient
of 'soon before' is not satisfied.
 Prosecution
failed to show that 'soon before' her death the
deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment
by her in-laws for or in connection with demand of
dowry. Prosecution also failed to show that all the
relatives of the husband were residing jointly with
the appellant (Ram Ji) and her mother (Sumari
Devi) and hence, they are entitled for benefit of
doubt. Other relatives of the husband were
acquitted. (Para -104,105,106)

Criminal Appeal 6710 of 2011, party
allowed.

Criminal Appeal 5490 of 2011, allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,242 of 79,517. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39242 for what follows._

346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the learned Single Judge of this court.
He has not committed any mistake in
deciding the case and acquitting the
appellants of charges under Sections- 498A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section 3⁄4 of D.P.
Act. We have also reached the same
conclusion. Further, we have found that
conviction and sentence of appellants U/S
506 Part 1 IPC was also unwarranted and
may have been ordered only for protection
of trial court from unwanted notice like the
one which was issued by learned Single
Judge to the District and Sessions Judge.

48. The reply submitted by the
District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh is
accepted with regret that learned Single
Judge should not have issued notice to the
Presiding Officer of trial court merely on
the basis of submission of counsel for
informant without considering the full facts
and the law involved in the case. Learned
Single Judge of this court acted is haste
when he issued notice to the District and
Sessions Judge, Aligarh. The District and
Sessions Judge has stated in his reply that
the notice has been issued to him only to
harm his reputation and service career.

49. Learned Single Judge of this High
Court not only issued notice to the Sessions
Judge but directed the matter to be placed
before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for kind
perusal without waiting for reply of District
and Sessions Judge and deciding whether
reply of the District and Sessions Judge
was satisfactory or not. Such conduct of the
High Court is responsible for the fear on
the part of the Judicial Officers in the trial
court and in many cases where the accused
deserves clear acquittal, judgment of
conviction and order of sentence is passed
only because Presiding Officers want to
avoid issuance of notice and action by High
Court ordered without properly considering
their judgments and orders.

50. The office shall make endeavour
to search the then District and Sessions
Judge, Aligarh who has certainly retired by
now and send a copy of this judgment to
him so that he may know that he did not
committed any error in deciding the case,
except the minor error of conviction of
appellants u/S 506, Part 1 IPC, which we
have rectified.

51. For the detailed reasons given in
the judgment of Criminal Appeal No. 6376
of 2010, the Criminal Appeal Nos. 6365 of
2010, 6504 of 2010 U/S 372 Cr.P.C and
Government Appeal No. 8242 of 2010 are
clearly without force and are hereby
dismissed.

52. Office is directed to return the
record of the trial court within period of
two weeks and notify this judgment to the
trial court too.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 346
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 6710 of 2011
With
Criminal Appeal No. 5490 of 2011

Ram Ji & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
V.P. Srivastava, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.
9 All. Ram Ji & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
347
(A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death and
Cruelty - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 304-B/34, 498-A/34, The Dowry
prohibition Act, 1961- Section 4 - Essential
ingredients
of
Section
304-B
IPC,
including "soon before her death" and "in
connection with demand of dowry -
Presumption under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act, 1872 - There must be
existence of a proximate and live link
between the effect of cruelty based on
dowry demand and the death concerned -
General and Omnibus allegations cannot
be manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the husband are forced to
undergo trial - Allowing prosecution in the
absence
of
clear
allegations
against
relatives of the husband would simply
result in an abuse of the process of law -
Burden on the accused is not as onerous
as that which lies on the prosecution - In
a criminal trial the defence evidence
stands on the same footing as that of the
prosecution.(Para - 72,76,93,101,104)

Deceased, married to the appellant - was
allegedly harassed for dowry (Rs. 50,000 and a
scooter) - She was brought to her parental
house in an injured state - was tortured and
burnt by pouring hot mustered oil, which
resulted into the burning of her right hand and
leg - died the following day - death of deceased
occurred while she was staying with her own
family members. (Para - 4 to 6 ,104)

HELD: - Accused husband (Ram Ji) and motherin-law (Sumari Devi) only may be held liable for
the offence under Section 498-A and Section 4
D.P. Act for causing cruelty to the deceased and
also for making an indirect demand of dowry from
the family members of the deceased through her
but the evidence on record is not sufficient to
record the conviction of the appellants under
Section 304-B/34 I.P.C. as the essential ingredient
of 'soon before' is not satisfied.
 Prosecution
failed to show that 'soon before' her death the
deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment
by her in-laws for or in connection with demand of
dowry. Prosecution also failed to show that all the
relatives of the husband were residing jointly with
the appellant (Ram Ji) and her mother (Sumari
Devi) and hence, they are entitled for benefit of
doubt. Other relatives of the husband were
acquitted. (Para -104,105,106)

Criminal Appeal 6710 of 2011, party
allowed.

Criminal Appeal 5490 of 2011, allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:
1. Satveer Singh Vs St.of Punj. (2001) 8 SCC
633
2. Shanti Vs St.of Har. (1991) 5 SCC 371
3. Kansraj Vs St.of Punj. (2000) 5 SCC 207
4. Sadhu Saran Singh Vs St.of U.P. & anr.
(2016) 4 SCC 357 and
5. St. of Haryana Vs Bhagirath & ors. (1999) 5
SCC 96
6. Sahebrao Mohan Berad Vs St.of Maha., 2011
Cr.LJ. 2157 (SC)
7. Satveer Singh Vs St.of Punj. (2001) 8 SCC
633
8. Satbir Singh Vs St.of Ha. (2021) 6 SCC 1
9. Kunhiabdulla & anr. Vs St.of Kerala (2004) 4
SCC 13
10. K. Subba Rao & ors. Vs St.of Telangana
(2018) 14 SCC 452
11. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & ors. Vs St.of
Bihar & ors. (2022) 6 SCC 599
12. Asokan Vs St.with M. Balasubramaniam Vs
St.of Tamil Nadu and Rajammal & anr. Vs St.,
(2000) 4 SCC 68
13. Sher Singh Vs St.of Har. (2015) 3 SCC 724
14. Primila Vs St.of U.P. (2023) 2 SCC (Cri) 223
15. Anand Ramchandra Chougule Vs Sidarai
Laxaman Chougala & ors. (2019) 8 SCC 50
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16. Pratap Vs St.of U.P. (1976) 2 SCC 798
17. Munshi Prasad Vs St.of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC
351

(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Since these appeals have been filed
by the accused appellants against the same
judgement and order, they have been heard
together and are being disposed of by a
common order.

2. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment
and
order
dated
9.9.2011 passed
by
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13,
Allahabad in S.T. No. 618 of 2006 arising out
of Crime No. 193 of 2003 under Section 304B/34, 498-A/34 I.P.C. and 4 D.P. Act, P.S.-
Kydganj, Allahabad, whereby the appellants
have been convicted and sentenced under
Section 304-B/34 I.P.C. for 10 years rigorous
imprisonment, under Section 498-A/34 I.P.C.
for 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine
of Rs.2,000/- each with default clause and
under Section 4 D.P. Act for 1 year simple
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each
with default clause and all the sentences were
to run concurrently, the present criminal
appeals have been preferred by convictappellants 1. Ram Ji, 2. Smt. Sumari Devi, 3.
Mahendra Kumar, 4. Dwarika Prasad, 5. Ram
Prasad, 6. Smt. Manju, 7. Smt. Manisha, 8.
Smt. Urmila and 9. Smt. Kusum.

3. Out of nine convict appellants,
convict Ram Ji and Dwarika Prasad have
died and reports regarding their death are
available on record. Hence, the appeals qua
convict appellants Ram Ji and Dwarika
Prasad stand abated.

4. The prosecution story as unfolded
in the FIR is that Urmila, the daughter of
the informant Chote Lal was married with
Ram Ji s/o Shyam Sundar on 11.11.2003
and when she came to her matrimonial
house after marriage a demand for one
scooter and Rs.50,000/- cash was made by
her in-laws as an additional dowry and she
was also threatened for dire consequences
in case the demand made by the in-laws
was not satisfied. She came back to her
parental house and when on 27.11.2003 she
again went to her matrimonial house she
was tortured and burnt by pouring hot
mustered oil, which resulted into the
burning of her right hand and leg; On her
telephone call, Ghanshyam, the son of the
informant and his son-in-law Chaman
Kumar went to the house of her in-laws on
3.12.2003 and the deceased was taken to
her parental house and when they were
taking her to the hospital on 4.12.2003, she
died on way at 7 am.

5. On the written report of informant
FIR was lodged on 4.12.2003 at 10.00 am
against 9 named accused persons and
investigation started.

6.

Inquest
proceedings
were
performed by Tehsildar Bara, Brajendra
Singh on 4.12.2003 and subsequently her
dead body was examined by Dr. A.K.
Mehrotra on 6.12.2003, who prepared the
autopsy report and found several antemortem injuries over the body of the
deceased and the cause of death was found
coma as a result of ante-mortem head
injury.

7. The matter was investigated
initially by Shri Prakash Swaroop Pandey,
Dy. S.P. EOW, who during course of
investigation
inspected
the
place
of
occurrence and prepared site plan, made
arrest
of
accused
persons
and
also
proceeded to interrogate the witnesses of
9 All. Ram Ji & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
349
this case and subsequently the investigation
was transferred to Shri Rajesh Kumar, C.O.
City, Firozabad, who completed the rest
formalities of the investigation and after
collecting sufficient evidence submitted
charge sheet to the Court.

8. The offence being exclusively
triable
by
the
Sessions
Court
was
committed to the Court of Sessions by the
Magistrate where charges under Section
498-A/34, 304-B/34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4
D.P. Act were framed against all the charge
sheeted nine accused persons. They denied
all the charges and claimed for trial.

9. To bring home the charges against
the accused-appellants the prosecution
relied upon the oral evidence and in all as
many as 10 prosecution witnesses were
examined. P.W.1 Chote Lal, informant/
father of the deceased, P.W.2 Ghanshyam
Kumar, brother of the deceased, P.W.3 Km.
Shabnam, sister of the deceased and formal
witnesses P.W.4 Dr. Veerendra Singh,
medical officer, P.W.5 Crt. Mhr. Rampati
Singh, P.W.6 Dr. R.D. Ram, P.W.7 Rajesh
Kumar, C.O. City, second I.O, P.W.8 Dy.
S.P. Prakash Swaroop Pandey, first I.O.,
P.W.9 Brijendra Dwivedi, Tehsildar and
P.W.10 S.I. Surendra Nath Dubey, the
scribe,
have
been
produced
by
the
prosecution.

10. In support of the oral evidence the
prosecution
has
relied
upon
the
documentary evidence as well. Written
report Ex.Ka-1, Inquest report Ex.Ka-2,
marriage invitation cards Ex.Ka-3 and
Ex.Ka-4, photographs Ex.Ka-5 to Ex.Ka-9,
first post mortem report Ex.Ka-9/1, GD.
Ex.Ka-10, second post mortem report
Ex.Ka-11, charge sheet- Ex.Ka-12, site
plan Ex.Ka-13, memo of taking photo and
video of marriage ceremony Ex.Ka-14,
report to CMO Ex.Ka-15, Report of
Tehsildar Ex.Ka-16, report to R.I. Ex.Ka17, letter by Tehsildar to C.M.O. Ex.Ka-18,
challan lash Ex.Ka-19, photo nash Ex.Ka20, chick FIR Ex.Ka-21, copy of nakal
rapat regarding registration of case Ex.Ka22 are produced as documentary evidence.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, C.O. Sirathu,
District Kaushambi was produced as
C.W.1, who has proved the fact, the
investigation in this case was performed by
C.O. City-III, Shri Rajesh Kumar, who as
per his information is posted at Firozabad
at present.

11. The incriminating circumstances
appearing in evidence were put to the
accused persons after closure of the
prosecution evidence in their statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they
made a specific denial of the prosecution
case, claimed the prosecution evidence as
false and fabricated and pleaded for
defence evidence. A specific defence was
taken by the accused Ramji, the husband,
who stated in his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. that no conjugal relation was
made between the couple and the deceased
stayed at his home for about 2 days only
and then her family members took her with
them. The bidaai of his wife had to take
place
on
7.12.2003
but
they
got
information of her death prior to that.
Subsequently he came to know that his
wife was entangled with some other person
and was making preparation to go with him
but when the matter was disclosed to her
family members she was bitterly assaulted
by them which resulted into her death. The
accused persons were falsely implicated in
this matter as the family members of the
deceased are active in politics and they
have a lot of influence upon the police and
local leaders. Besides it a plea for separate
living was taken by the co-accused persons.
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. To strengthen the defence version
D.W.1 Vinod Kumar, D.W.2 Smt. Usha
Devi and D.W.3 Jagdish Prasad have been
examined as defence witnesses by the
accused persons.

13. The trial Court after hearing at
length both the sides and after scrutinizing
and analyzing the evidence on record
passed an order of conviction against all the
9 accused persons and they all were
convicted under Sections 304-B/34, 498A/34 I.P.C. and Sec. 4 D.P. Act and were
sentenced as mentioned herein above.

14. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Neeja
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants and Sri Kamal Dev Rai and Sri
A.K. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

15. Criminal Appeal No. 6710 of
2011 was filed by appellant Ram Ji, the
husband and Smt. Sumari Devi, the
mother-in-law and Criminal Appeal No.
5490 of 2011 was preferred by Mahendra
Kumar, brother-in- law (Jeth), Dwarika
Prasad, uncle of husband, Ram Prasad,
uncle of the husband, Smt. Manju, aunt of
accused Ram Ji, Smt. Manisha and Smt.
Urmila sister-in-law (Jethani) and Smt.
Kusum,
sister-in-law
(Nand)
of
the
deceased.

Prosecution Evidence-

16. To start with the appreciation of
evidence on record the examination of
P.W.1 Chote Lal, the informant/ father of
the deceased is to be scrutinized. P.W. 1 in
his
testimony
has
corroborated
the
prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR.
He has narrated that several articles were
given along with cash rupees in the
marriage of his daughter with Ram Ji on
11.11.2003 but her in-laws were not happy
with the dowry given in the marriage and
on her stay to her matrimonial house for 56 days only the deceased was subjected to
cruelty and harassment for demand of
additional dowry and the said story was
disclosed by her to her mother blaming all
the accused persons/ in-laws for the said
harassment and demand. The deceased was
sent again to her in-laws' house on
27.11.2003 but this time she was bitterly
assaulted by her in-laws and hot mustard
oil was poured upon her causing burn
injuries to her legs and hands. On a
telephone call made by the deceased he
sent his son-in-law and son to her
matrimonial house on 3.12.2003 to take her
back and when she came back she was
unable to speak even and reported her
family members about the serious assault
made upon her by her in-laws. They also
found her face swollen, having blackening
in the back of chest and marks of injuries
over her whole body. When she was being
taken by an auto for treatment next day on
4.12.2003 she collapsed near the Glass
factory. P.W.1 has also proved written
report Ex.Ka-1, which he dictated to Shiv
Shankar Gupta and on the basis of which
FIR was lodged. He has also proved
inquest report Ex.Ka-2 and has affirmed his
presence at the time of inquest proceeding.

17. P.W. 2 Ghanshyam Kumar is the
brother of the deceased. Corroborating the
testimony of P.W.1. he has also given his
statement in the same fashion and has
proved this fact that his sister had been
under continuous torture made by her inlaws for demand of dowry and when on her
telephone call he along with his brother-inlaw went to her matrimonial house on
3.12.2003 she again disclosed the factum of
assault made by her in-laws and she was
not in a fit state of health. She was brought
9 All. Ram Ji & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
351
to her parental house and the next morning
she became serious. They took her for
treatment by a tempo but his sister who was
having several injuries over her body died
near a glass factory. P.W.2 has proved the
marriage invitation cards as Ex.Ka-3 and
Ex.Ka-4 and photographs at the time of
jaimal
as
Ex.Ka-5
to
Ex.Ka-7
and
photographs taken after her death as Ex.Ka8, Ka-9.

18. P.W.3 Km. Shabnam is the sister
of the deceased, who has corroborated the
statements made by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and
has repeated the story of demand of dowry
and causing cruelty and harassment to her
sister followed by serious assault by her inlaws for demand of one scooter and
Rs.50000 cash as additional dowry.

19.

Apart
from
the
aforesaid
witnesses of fact the prosecution has also
relied upon the testimony of formal
witnesses.

20. P.W. 4 Dr. Veerandra Singh,
medical officer, who has conducted the
autopsy of the body of the deceased on
05.12.2003 at 3:15 p.m. has proved the first
post mortem report as Ex.Ka-9 and has also
identified the signature of Dr. Pradip
Tondon, who accompanied him in the
proceedings of post mortem of the
deceased. P.W.4 at the time of post mortem
found following injuries over the body of
the deceased:

(i) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on left
forearm post aspect 2.5 cm below elbow.

(ii) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on
medial aspect of left elbow.

(iii) Abrasion 1 cm x 1⁄2 cm on
dorsal aspect of left hand near base of
middle finger.

(iv) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on
outer part of left forearm 1 cm above wrist
joint.

(v) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on
anterior aspect of right leg 4 cm below
knee joint.

(vi) Abrasion 1 cm x 1⁄2 cm on
outer part of right ankle joint.

(vii) Abrasion 2-1/2 cm x 1⁄2 cm
on back of chest left side just medial to
shoulder blade.

(viii) Contusion 8 cm x 4 cm on
the scalp left side 10 cm above left eyebrow
and 2 cm behind to midline.

21. P.W.4 has stated that the death of
the deceased was caused due to ante
mortem head injury followed by coma.

22. P.W.5 Cons. Rampati Singh is the
scribe of G.D. He has narrated in his
testimony that earlier the case was
registered as case crime no. 'Nil' of 2003
but since the place of occurrence was
falling in the area of P.S. Kydganj he
marked a crime number to it and prepared
G.D. by his signature. He has proved the
copy of G.D. as Ex.Ka-10.

23. P.W.6 Dr. R.D. Ram has
proved the factum of second post
mortem and he has explained that
earlier the post mortem of the deceased
was conducted on 5.12.2003 by Dr.
Veerendra Singh and Dr. P. Tondon and
subsequent post mortem was performed
by him by
order
of
C.M.O.
on
6.12.2003 at 4:45 p.m. and in the panel
he was authorized along with Dr. A.K.
Mehrotra and Dr. D.K. Srivastava to
perform the post mortem. P.W.6 who
proves the second autopsy report as Ext.
Ka-11 found following injuries over the
body of the deceased:
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) Abraded wound 1 cm x 1 cm
on the dorsum of left forearm 2.5 cm below
the elbow.

(ii) Abraded wound 1 cm x 1 cm
on the medial epicondyle of left elbow.

(iii) Abraded wound 1 cm x 1/2
cm on the dorsom of left hand 4 cm
proximal to the base of middle finger 3 cm
from the medial border of the hand.

(iv) Abraded wound 1 cm x 1/2
cm on the lateral aspect of left forearm 1
cm proximal to wrist joint.

(v) Abraded wound 1 cm x 1 cm
on the front of the right leg 2 cm below
tibial tuberosity.

(vi) Abraded wound 1 cm x 1/2
cm on the lateral aspect of right ankle joint.

(vii) Abraded wound 2.5 cm x 1
cm on the outer back of chest on left side.
Just medial to the medial end of the spine
of scapula.

(viii) Contusion 8 cm x 4 cm on
the scalp on left side 2 cm from midline 10
cm above the left eyebrow.

He has opined that the death should
have been caused 2 and 1⁄2 day before the
post mortem and opined that due to ante
mortem head injuries which resulted into
coma, the death of the deceased occurred.
He has also clarified that no difference was
found between the first and the subsequent
post mortem of the deceased.

24. P.W.7 Rajesh Kumar, C.O. city,
Firozabad is the second I.O. of the case,
who took over the investigation on
09.01.2004 and performed the remaining
investigation of the case and on the basis of
sufficient evidence submitted the charge
sheet Ex.Ka-12 against all the 9 named
accused persons of the case.

25. P.W.8 Prakash Swaroop Pandey is
the first I.O of the case who has proved the
proceedings of the investigation. He has
also proved the site plan as Ex.Ka-13 and
memo
of
taking
photographs
into
possession as Ex.Ka-14. He has further
proved the factum of recording of the
statement of the witnesses of fact and other
relevant formal witnesses.

Rival contentions-

26. The impugned judgement and
order passed by the learned Sessions Court
has been assailed by the learned counsel for
the appellants on various grounds. It has
been
vehemently
submitted
that
the
essential ingredients to constitute an
offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. are
completely missing in this case and the
prosecution
has
miserably
failed
to
establish the essential components to bring
the matter within the purview of dowry
death.

27.

It
is
further
urged
that
significantly in this case the death of the
deceased lady has been occurred while she
was present in her parental house amongst
her own family members. It is further
submitted that the evidence available on
record explicitly shows that when the
deceased was taken by her own family
members from her matrimonial house she
was in a fit and healthy condition but the
family members of the deceased herself illtreated and assaulted her causing grievous
injuries which were proved fatal to her. It is
further submitted that the prosecution has
failed to show on the basis of the evidence
of fact and medical evidence as well that
the deceased came to her parental house in
injured
condition
and
the
injuries
whatsoever, found upon her body were the
result of beating her violently by her own
family members and the present appellants
had nothing to do with that.
9 All. Ram Ji & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
353

28. The impugned judgement has
been assailed on another ground that the
prosecution has come forward with an
unnatural
story
that
a
demand
of
Rs.50,000/- and one scooter was made to
the
deceased
by
all
the
appellants,
including all the family members of her
husband viz. brother-in-law, Mahendra
Kumar (Jeth), Sisters-in-law, Smt. Urmila
and Smt. Manisha, uncle and aunt of
husband, Ram Prasad and Smt. Manju,
sister-in-law Smt. Kusum (married nand),
mother-in-law Sumari Devi, and Dwarika
Prasad (uncle) and Ram ji the husband as
well. It is vehemently submitted that in this
way all the family members of the husband
of the deceased including his married sister,
uncle and aunt have been falsely roped into
the present case on the basis of omnibus
allegations without any specific instance of
their involvement in the alleged offence.

29. It is further submitted that the
medical evidence does not corroborate the
prosecution version in material terms and
there are relevant contradictions between
the evidence of fact and the medical
evidence on record. On such grounds a
prayer has been made for the acquittal of
all the appellants by allowing the present
criminal appeal.

30. Per contra, learned A.G.A
vehemently opposed the contentions raised
by the learned counsel for the appellants. It
has been submitted that there is ample
evidence on record to prove that the
demand for additional dowry in the form of
one scooter and Rs.50,000/- cash was
continuously being made by all the
appellants. It is further submitted that the
essential element of 'soon before' to bring
an offence under the cover of 'dowry
death' has very well been proved by the
witnesses of fact. The deceased was taken
to her parental house same day when she
was tortured by the appellants for the sake
of additional dowry. It is also submitted
that she was taken to her parental house in
injured condition and the injuries were very
severe and grievous in nature which
ultimately proved fatal to her and the poor
lady died just on the next day when she was
being taken to the doctor by her family
members.

31. It is also submitted that the
conduct of the appellants from the very
inception of the occurrence is also relevant
to be taken into consideration.

32. The medical evidence on record
stands in complete conformity with the
deposition of the witnesses who are the
family members of the deceased. It is also
submitted that there is no perversity in the
impugned
judgement
which
is
well
reasoned and sentencing is also proper and
the present criminal appeal is liable to be
dismissed.

Ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C.-

33. At the very outset before
analysing the evidence on record the
essential ingredients to constitute an
offence under Section 304-B are required
to be taken into consideration. Section 304B I.P.C. provides as hereunder:

"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 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
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
called "dowry death", and such husband or
relative shall be deemed to have caused her
death".

34. Further, the conditions for
applying Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section
4 D.P. Act are also to be kept in mind
which follow like this-

"Section 498-A. 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".

"Section 4 Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961

If any person demands, directly
or indirectly, from the parents or other
relatives or guardian of a bride or
bridegroom, as the case may be, any
dowry, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than six months, but which may extend
to two years and with fine which may
extend to ten thousand rupees:Provided
that the court may, for adequate and
special reasons to be mentioned in the
judgment,
impose
a
sentence
of
imprisonment for a term of less than six
months".

35. The definition of 'dowry death'
envisaged under Section 304-B I.P.C. is
exhaustive and the essential components to
constitute an offence thereunder deserve to
be observed which have been elucidated in
umpteen of cases.

Essentials of Section 304-B I.P.C.-

36. In Satveer Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (2001) 8 SCC 633 relying upon the
decision in Shanti Vs. State of Haryana
(1991) 5 SCC 371 and Kansraj Vs. State
of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207 the Hon'ble
Apex
Court
defined
the
essential
components of Section 304-B I.P.C. which
are as follows-

(i) death of woman occurring
otherwise
than
under
normal
circumstances,

(ii)
such
death
should
be
occurred within 7 years of her marriage
and

(iii) soon before her death she
should have been subjected to cruelty and
harassment and

(iv) such cruelty and harassment
should be in connection with any demand
of dowry.

When the above pre-requisitions
are established the husband or his relatives
who caused the deceased such cruelty and
harassment shall be presumed to be guilty
of offence under Section 304-B I.P.C.

Conclusion-

Death within 7 years of marriage-

37. Death of the deceased within
seven years of her marriage with Ram Ji
(now dead) being an admitted fact needs no
analysis of evidence over this issue.

Death caused otherwise than under
normal circumstances-

38. The second ingredient necessary
to establish an offence under Section 304-B
I.P.C is that the prosecution has to show
9 All. Ram Ji & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
355
that the death of the lady occurred
otherwise
than
under
normal
circumstances. The phrase "otherwise than
under normal circumstances" may be taken
to mean as to the death of the deceased was
not a result of any usual course of life but
the circumstances under which the death of
the
woman
was
caused
should
be
apparently under suspicious circumstances.
It should never be a result of natural death
but the circumstances surrounding her
death must be otherwise than normal
circumstances.\

39. The learned trial Judge in order to
find out the truthfulness of the aforesaid
fact relied upon the testimony of the
witnesses of fact and formal witnesses and
medical evidence as well available on
record.

40. The most crucial point in the
matter in hand is as to whether the
deceased was brought to her parental house
in
an
injured
condition
from
her
matrimonial house and injuries inflicted
upon her body were the root cause of her
death occurring just on the next day of the
injuries caused or she was brought to her
parental house in a healthy state of body
and only after coming to her parental house
she was belaboured by her own family
members which was proved fatal to her.
The Court has to find out whether she
sustained injuries in her own parental house
or she was already seriously injured when
she was brought to her parental house.

41. The evidence on record on the said
relevant issue is to be examined minutely to
find out the guilt of the accused persons in
connection with dowry death of the deceased.
The FIR of this case consists of the allegation
that when after Bidaai the deceased went to
her matrimonial house on 27.11.2003 she
was bitterly assaulted by all the named
accused persons and was burnt over her right
hand and legs by hot mustard oil which was
poured upon her by her mother-in-law and
elder sister-in-law (jethani) and when the
incident was informed by the deceased on
phone to her family members Ghanshyam,
brother of the deceased and his brother-inlaw (behnoi) went to her matrimonial house
and took the deceased to her parental house
on 3.12.2003 in the evening.

42. P.W.1 the informant/ father of the
deceased in his statement recorded before the
Court has deposed that on 27.11.2003 when
his daughter went again to her matrimonial
house she was beaten bitterly by her in-laws
and her legs and hands were also burnt by
pouring hot mustard oil upon her. P.W.2
Ghanshyam Kumar, the brother of the
deceased is the person who had gone with his
brother-in-law to the matrimonial house of
the deceased and he states in his evidence that
on receiving the phone call by her sister on
3.12.2003 informing of the injuries she
sustained by her in-laws, he along with his
brother-in-law went there and took her to her
parental house. She was having serious
injuries.

43. P.W.3 the sister of the deceased also
affirms that when on 3.12.2003 the deceased
was brought to her parental house she had
seen several injuries upon her body.

44. P.W.4 Dr. Virendra Singh, who
performed the first post mortem of the
deceased has categorically stated that the
death of the deceased was caused due to
ante mortem head injury. He also found
several injuries over the body of the
deceased.

45. In the same fashion P.W.6 who
performed the second autopsy of the dead
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
body of the deceased also finds several
injuries, eight in number over the body of
the deceased and in his opinion the death of
the deceased was caused due to coma as a
result of ante mortem head injury.

46. The aforesaid set of evidence is
capable of disclosing the number and nature of
the injuries of the deceased but the most crucial
point to be taken into account is whether the
deceased was brought to her parental house
already in a fit state of health and body and
subsequently for some reasons she sustained
injuries by her own family members or she was
already injured when brought to her parental
home. This issue arises on account of the
defence case which was suggested by the
defence during the course of cross-examination
of the witnesses of fact. The defence has come
forward with a definite case that the deceased
was entangled with some one else and she
never wanted to go to her matrimonial house
but P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 the family
members of the deceased denied of such
suggestions.

47. P.W.3 in her deposition further states
that when after first bidai her sister came to her
parental house she herself found some signs of
injuries over her body which she disclosed
before the I.O. as well. Further, she states that
subsequently on 3.12.2003 when the deceased
came to her house she herself found some
injuries over her head, leg, back and her private
parts as well but however, no sign of burning or
blister was discovered by her.

48. P.W.2 in this connection has stated
that her sister herself told her that she was
beaten violently by her in-laws and sustained a
number of injuries when he went for her bidai
on 3.12.2003. He further states that due to that
assault serious injuries were present over her
body and he had seen the signs of injuries over
her chest, head, back etc. and further he affirms
that due to injuries his sister was unable to
move even.

49. P.W.1 in the same fashion states
that when her daughter was brought to her
parental house she had a swollen face,
black signs over her back and several signs
of injuries were present over different parts
of her body including several burn signs
and blisters over different parts of her body
as well. However, this court takes notice of
this fact that the evidence of P.W.1, the
informant/father of the deceased is self
contradictory as in his cross-examination
he categorically states that his daughter did
not make any telephone call on 03.12.2003
and further did not inform about any assault
made to her by her in-laws. Remarkably , if
it was so, what brought two family
members of P.W.1 and why they went to
the matrimonial house of the deceased
becomes a highly suspicious circumstance.
The prosecution was certainly under
obligation to explain the same but it failed
and resultantly P.W.1 at this place himself
disowns the contents of the FIR which was
lodged by him leaving an ugly scar upon
the story of prosecution.

50. The attention of this Court has
been drawn to a very relevant situation
which unfolds the truth of the prosecution
case and the defence version as well. As
per oral evidence on record when the
deceased was brought to her parental
house in the evening of 3.12.2003 she
was found in injured condition by her
family members and was medically
examined by some Dr. Maurya in the
very evening of 3.12.2003.

51. The prosecution evidence requires
to be examined from the angle of the
treatment of deceased in the evening of
3.12.2003 as well.
9 All. Ram Ji & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
357

52. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief
states that when her daughter came to his
house she told that she had been subjected
to assault by her in-laws and she was even
unable to speak properly but however he
makes no statement for her treatment by
some doctor of the locality, however, in his
cross-examination he states that when his
daughter came to his house she was
conscious and was speaking as well. There
were several signs of burn injuries over her
body and blisters were also visible on
different parts of her body. Significantly in
his entire testimony he makes no statement
for the treatment of the deceased in the
evening of 3.12.2003.

53. P.W.2 Ghanshyam in his
examination-in-chief has stated that the
deceased had undergone treatment by a
local doctor in the evening of 3.12.2003
who was named as Dr. Maurya Prasad
kushwaha by him later on and further he
explains that since doctors were not
available in the government hospital she
had undertaken treatment of Dr. Maurya at
7.30 pm where she was carried by his
father and not by him.

54. P.W.3 Shabnam states that since
the deceased had several bodily injuries,
Dr. Maurya was called for her treatment.
However this fact does not appear in her
statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and
she is unable to to explain the reason
thereof. While controverted in her crossexamination she states that on being
interrogated by the I.O. she had disclosed
the factum of treatment of the injured by
Dr. Maurya and she herself had seen
injuries over the several parts of her body
but however there was no sign of burning
and no blisters were seen by her. She
further states that Dr. Maurya visited her
place at 7.30 in the evening but how long
he remained at her house she is unable to
tell. She further states that only one or two
bangles were found in her wrist and rest of
the bangles were broken while she was
being beaten by her in-laws.

55. On analysis of the evidence of the
witnesses of fact on record some twisted
story in respect of the treatment of the
deceased by Dr. Maurya is found. At one
place P.W.3 the sister of the deceased states
that in the evening at 7.30 PM Dr. Maurya
had visited her own house to see her sister
but at the same time P.W.2 the brother of
the deceased states that his father himself
took his sister to Dr. Maurya in the evening
at 7.30. This is a material contradiction in
the deposition of P.W.2 and P.W.3 as to
whether Dr. Maurya himself visited the
place of the informant or the deceased was
taken to the clinic of Dr. Maurya. The said
contradiction
undoubtedly
is
very
significant and relevant in the facts and
circumstances of the present case because
the most crucial issue in this case is as to at
which
place
the
deceased
sustained
injuries. There are material contradictions
in the statement of P.W.1, P.W.2 and
P.W.3
as
to
whether
there
were
blisters/burn injuries over the body of the
deceased or not. No clear picture regarding
the health and condition of the deceased
when she was brought to her parental house
is found on the basis of evidence of P.W.1,
P.W.2 and P.W.3 who make inconsistent
and contradictory statements in this regard.
It is also relevant to see that if the deceased
was taken by the informant P.W.1 to Dr.
Maurya for treatment why this fact does not
appear in the entire testimony of P.W.1
himself. Moreover, P.W.8 the first I.O.
categorically states that P.W.3 Shabnam
never told him that the deceased remained
under treatment of some Dr. Maurya in the
evening of 03.12.2003, hence the entire
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
story of treatment of the deceased by some
Dr. Maurya is an after thought script of the
prosecution which cannot be relied upon.

56. P.W.4 the doctor who performed
the first autopsy of the deceased no where
states that any blister was found over any
of the injuries sustained by the deceased.

57.