# Sugam v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 25
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-02
- **Case number:** Jail Appeal No. 374 of 2018
- **Bench:** Mohd. Aslam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sugam-v-state-of-u-p-48503
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2)/383 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498-A,
304-B, 302 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- Section 3/4 - Challenge to-convictionthe deceased died on account of hanging
after beating her and she met with
homicidal
death-
the
deceased
was
subjected to cruelty or harassment soon
before
her
death
regarding
dowrydeceased met with unnatural death within
7
years
of
marriage-accused
was
demanding motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/-
cash-post-mortem report and statement
of PW3 (Doctor) proved that the deceased
met with homicidal death and not by
suicidal death-As per site plan proved by
PW5 no broken door was found-The court
below
rightly
sentenced
the
accused/appellant. (Para 1 to 27)

B. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 304-B - read together with
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, a
comprehensive picture emerges that if a
married woman dies under unnatural
circumstances at her matrimonial home
within 7 years from her marriage and
there
are
allegations
of
cruelty
or
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
harassment upon such married woman for
or in connection with demand of dowry by
the husband or relatives of the husband,
the case would squarely come under
"dowry death" and there shall be a
presumption against the husband and the
relatives.(Para 20, 21, 22)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Sugam Vs. State of U.P.
25
their statement, and the witnesses were
present on various dates fixed in the case,
but their cross-examination was not done
by the counsel for the appellant before the
trial Court. Hence, the plea of the appellant
that no opportunity has been afforded to the
appellant to cross-examine Ibrahim (P.W.1),
Naseem (P.W.2) and Rahmulla (P.W.3) is
contrary to the record and is rejected
accordingly.

54. In view of the foregoing discussions,
it is clear that the prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellant, as instant case is relating to the
murder of the deceased in a broad daylight;
appellant had strong motive to commit the
murder of the deceased; appellant has done to
death the deceased in a brutal manner, by
stabbing him with bodkin (sooja) on his neck,
as a consequence of which the deceased
succumbed to his injuries; statements of three
eye-witnesses, P.W.1-Ibrahim, P.W.2-Naseem
and P.W.3-Rahmulla, which were relied upon
by trial Court, had fully supported the
prosecution case.

55. Thus, the impugned judgment and
order passed by trial Court convicting and
sentencing the appellant for offence in
question is hereby upheld and the same does
not require any interference by this Court in
the instant appeal.

56. The instant appeal lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is in
jail. He shall serve the sentence as ordered by
the trial Court vide impugned judgment and
order dated 19.11.2008.

57. Let a certified copy of this order as
well as lower Court record be transmitted to
the Court concerned for necessary information
and necessary compliance, forthwith.
----------
(2022)05ILR A25
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MOHD. ASLAM, J.

Jail Appeal No. 374 of 2018

Sugam ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Ms. Divya Ojha, Sri Yogesh
Kumar Srivastava, Sri Noor Mohammad

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2)/383 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498-A,
304-B, 302 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- Section 3/4 - Challenge to-convictionthe deceased died on account of hanging
after beating her and she met with
homicidal
death-
the
deceased
was
subjected to cruelty or harassment soon
before
her
death
regarding
dowrydeceased met with unnatural death within
7
years
of
marriage-accused
was
demanding motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/-
cash-post-mortem report and statement
of PW3 (Doctor) proved that the deceased
met with homicidal death and not by
suicidal death-As per site plan proved by
PW5 no broken door was found-The court
below
rightly
sentenced
the
accused/appellant. (Para 1 to 27)

B. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 304-B - read together with
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, a
comprehensive picture emerges that if a
married woman dies under unnatural
circumstances at her matrimonial home
within 7 years from her marriage and
there
are
allegations
of
cruelty
or
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
harassment upon such married woman for
or in connection with demand of dowry by
the husband or relatives of the husband,
the case would squarely come under
"dowry death" and there shall be a
presumption against the husband and the
relatives.(Para 20, 21, 22)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Baldev Singh Vs St. of Punj. (2008) 13 SCC
233

2. Bachni Devi & anr.. Vs St. of Har. thru Secy.
of Home Deptt. (2011) 2 ACC 3 SC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam, J.)

1. Heard Sri Noor Mohammad,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Yogesh
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
accused-appellant, Sri Sanjay Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent
and perused the record.

2. This appeal is preferred by the
accused-appellant
through
Jail
Superintendent, Jhansi under Section 374
(2) read with Section 383 Cr.P.C. against
the impugned judgment of conviction dated
03.02.2018 and order of sentence dated
09.02.2018 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1,
Jhansi in Session Trial No. 337 of 2014
'State of U.P. vs. Sugam' (arising out of
Case Crime No. 326 of 2014, under
Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station- Gursaray, District- Jhansi),
whereby the accused-appellant has been
convicted
and
sentenced
to
undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under
Section 304-B I.P.C., to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and a fine of
Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo further
imprisonment for two months under
Section 498-A I.P.C. and to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo
further imprisonment for three months
under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
It was further directed that 80% of the fine
amount shall be paid to the legal
representative of the deceased. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. In brief, prosecution case is that
informant Mani Ram has lodged the first
information report on the basis of written
complaint on 07.06.2014 at 00.15 A.M.
alleging therein that he married his
daughter Lalita aged about 21 years two
years ago with accused-appellant Sugam.
The accused-appellant and his family
members were demanding a motorcycle
and Rs.50,000/- as dowry for the last two
years and were harassing his daughter for
its non-fulfillment. His daughter told this
fact to him but due to his weak financial
condition he could not meet the demand of
dowry. It is further alleged that on
06.06.2014, the accused-appellant and his
family members murdered his daughter by
hanging her. The information regarding
death of his daughter Lalita Devi was
conveyed to him by the accused-appellant.
On the information, he went to the house of
in-laws' of his daughter and saw the dead
body of his daughter was laying on the
ground and all the family members of her
in-laws have absconded.

4. Ct. Laxmikant PW7 has drawn the
Chek Report (Ex.Ka.11) on 07.06.2014 at
00.15 A.M. on the basis of written
complaint
(Ex.Ka.1)
and
by
making
necessary entry in GD (Ex.Ka.12) vide
Rapat No. 3 on 07.06.2014 at 00.15 A.M.
and registered the Case Crime No.326 of
2014, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C.
5 All. Sugam Vs. State of U.P.
27
and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
against accused persons namely Sugam
(appellant), Nand Ram, Niraj, Sonu and
Ram Kishore. The investigation of the case
was undertaken by C.O. Subodh Gautam
(PW5). On 07.06.2014, he copied the
written complaint and GD in the CD and
also recorded the statements of Ct.
Laxmikant Tripathi, informant Mani Ram.
On the same day, he visited the place of
occurrence along with informant and
prepared site-plan (Ex.Ka.6). In the siteplan he has shown the place where dead
body of the deceased was found on cot and
the place of the wood plank in the roof
from which rope was hanging and also
shown the other things present in the house.
The inquest of the dead body was
conducted by Tahsildar Gulab Singh (PW6)
on 07.06.2014. He appointed Mani Ram,
Sita Sharan, Kamlesh Kumar, Shivram
Singh and Rajjan as Panch and completed
the inquest at 9:30 AM. The Panch has
opined that the deceased died due to
hanging and to ascertain the real cause of
death postmortem is needed. PW6 Gulab
Singh Tehsildar prepared Panchayatnama
(Ex.Ka.2), Photo Nash (Ex.Ka.7), letter to
Medical Officer (Ex.Ka.8), Challan Nash
(Ex.Ka.9), sealed the dead body and
prepared sample Seal (Ex.Ka.10) and sent
the dead body for postmortem through Ct.
Sriram Verma and Home Guard Amar
Singh along with police papers.

5. The autopsy of the dead body of
the deceased was conducted by a team of
doctors consisting Dr. Udai Srivastava
(PW3) and Dr. Bal Govind. At the time of
postmortem age of the deceased was found
about 21 years. Rigor mortis was found
present all over the body. Foul smell was
coming out from the body. Mouth was open
with protruded tongue. Serosanguinous
discharge was coming out from mouth and
nostrils. Following antemortem injuries
were found on the body of the deceased:-

(i) Abrasion (4 x 6) cm on the
back of left shoulder.

(ii) Ligature mark (28 x 1.5) cm
around the neck between chin and thyroid
cartilage. Base of mark was hard and
parchment like. Mark was directed upward
& backward obliquelly not completely
encircled the neck leaving about a gap of 6
cm in left side of the neck.

(iii) Abrasion (2 X 7) cm on the
right cheek, clotted blood present.

6.

On
internal
examination,
membrane of the brain and brain were
found congested. Mouth, tongue and
pharynx were found congested. Muscles of
larynx and vocal cords were found
damaged. Trachea hyoid bone was found
fractured. Pleura and preicardial sac were
found congested. The heart was found
filled with blood. Lung was found
congested and stomach was found empty.
Semi-digested food was found in small
intestine. Faecal matter was found in large
intestine. Lever, spleen, pancreas, kidneys
were found congested. Urenary bladder
was found empty. The doctor has opined
that the deceased has died about 18 hours
before the postmortem due to asphyxia as a
result of antemortem hanging. Dr. Udal
Srivastava prepared the postmortem report
(Ex.Ka.5) in his own handwriting on which
Dr. Bal Govind Sankhwar endorsed his
agreement.

7. On 12.06.2014, the Investigating
Officer has recorded the statement of Sita
Sharan and Brij Kishore, both brothers of
the deceased. On 19.06.2014, he also
recorded the statement of Smt. Phool
Kunwar, mother of the deceased. The
accused-appellant
was
arrested
on
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21.06.2014 at 5 A.M. in front of the door of
his house. Thereafter, statement of the
accused-appellant was recorded wherein he
has denied the occurrence. Thereafter, he
recorded the statements of witnesses of the
Punchnama, Dr. Udal Srivastava and also
the statements of persons who have given
affidavit regarding non-involvement of
other accused. He also collected the
marriage card of accused-appellant and
deceased (Ex.Ka.3) and prepared memo in
this
respect
(Ex.Ka.5).
Thereafter,
investigation of the case was transferred to
Avinash Kumar Gautam (PW8) who after
completing the investigation submitted the
charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.13) against accusedappellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B
I.P.C.
and
Sections
3/4
of
Dowry
Prohibition Act and the cognizance was
taken on 18.09.2014 and after complying
the provisions of the Section 207 Cr.P.C.
the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions vide order dated 18.9.2014 for
trial.

8. After hearing the prosecution and
learned counsel for the accused-appellant,
the charges of offence punishable under
Section 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and Section
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in alternative
charge of Section 302 I.P.C. were framed
against the accused-appellant. The accusedappellant has pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.

9. In order to prove its case,
prosecution has examined informant Mani
Ram (father of the deceased) as PW1, Sita
Sharan (brother of the deceased) as PW2
and Brij Kishore (brother of the deceased)
as
PW4
as
witnesses
of
the
fact.
Prosecution has examined formal witnesses
Dr. Udal Srivastava as PW3 to prove the
postmortem report (Ex.Ka.5) and the cause
of death of the deceased. Investigating
Officer CO Subodh Gautam was examined
as PW5 to prove the steps taken in
investigation and the site-plan (Ex.Ka.6).
Gulab Singh Tehsildar was examined as
PW6 to prove panchayatnama (Ex.Ka.2),
Photo Nash (Ex.Ka.7), letter to Medical
Officer (Ex.Ka.8), Challan Nash (Ex.Ka.9),
sample seal by which dead body of the
deceased
was
sealed
(Ex.Ka.10).
Prosecution also examined Ct. Laxmikant
as PW7 to prove the check report
(Ex.Ka.11) and GD Rapat No. 3 dated
07.06.2014 at 00.15 A.M. (Ex.Ka.12).
Investigating Officer CO Avinash Kumar
Gautam was examined as PW8 to prove the
charge sheet (Ex.Ka.13).

10.

Learner
lower
court
has
considered the arguments raised by learned
Additional
Government
Counsel
and
learned counsel for the accused-appellant
and
after
appreciating
the
evidence
available on record and the statements of
PW1 Mani Ram, father of the deceased,
PW2 Sita Sharan, brother of the deceased,
PW4 Brij Kishore, brother of the deceased,
has held that the prosecution has proved
that the marriage of the deceased has taken
place two years before her death i.e. within
seven
years
of
marriage
and
the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/-
were being demanded as dowry by the
accused-appellant soon after the marriage
and till the death of the deceased. Learned
lower court has also held that the deceased
has died on account of hanging after
beating her and she met with homicidal
death. Therefore, learned court below has
held that the charges against appellantaccused for offence punishable under
Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act are proved
beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly,
convicted and sentenced him to undergo
5 All. Sugam Vs. State of U.P.
29
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under
Section 304-B I.P.C., to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and a fine of
Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo further
imprisonment for two months under
Section 498-A I.P.C. and to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo
further imprisonment for three months
under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

11. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the accused-appellant that
learned lower court has misinterpreted the
evidence adduced by the prosecution and
has not considered the evidence adduced by
the defence and illegally held that the
accused was demanding a motorcycle and
Rs.50,000/-
as
dowry.
It
is
further
submitted that no complaint was ever made
by the deceased or her parents to the police
or higher authorities regarding demand of
dowry and consequent harassment. There is
no evidence on record to show that any
Panchayat was called regarding dispute of
demand
of
dowry
and
consequent
harassment upon the deceased. Learned
lower court has not considered the evidence
of the defence witnesses DW1 Smt. Gulab
Rani and DW2 Munna Lal. It is further
submitted that deceased has committed
suicide by bolting the door from inside the
room and her dead body was taken out
from the room after breaking the door. The
above circumstance rules out that the
deceased met with homicidal death. It is
further submitted that PW1 Mani Ram has
admitted in his cross-examination that his
daughter has returned to his house after
about one and a half months after marriage.
He has also admitted that his daughter went
to her in-law's house on second time and
thereafter she did not returned to his house.
PW2 Sita Sharan has stated in his
deposition that he was not present when his
sister had complained to family members
regarding demand of a motorcycle and
Rs.50,000/-
as
dowry.
It
is
further
submitted by learned counsel for the
accused-appellant that PW2 has admitted
that after persuasion, his sister was happily
sent to her in-law's house. It is proved from
the statement on oath of DW1 Gulab Rani
that accused-appellant was not present in
the house at the time of occurrence and had
returned to the house at about 6 P.M. then
he came to know about the occurrence.
There is no connection between the suicide
of the deceased and demand of dowry and
harassment. The deceased has suspicion
that accused-appellant is having illicit
relationship with some other women on
account of which she used to quarrel with
her husband and committed suicide.

12. Learned counsel for the accusedappellant has further submitted that learned
lower court has illegally held the accusedappellant guilty and has illegally sentenced
him for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is liable
to be set-aside and accused-appellant is
liable to be acquitted.

13. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
vehemently
opposed
the
submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the
accused-appellant and submitted that from
the evidence of PW1 Mani Ram (father of
the deceased), PW2 Sita Sharan (brother of
the deceased) and PW4 Brij Kishore
(brother of the deceased), it is proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the marriage
of the accused-appellant with deceased has
taken place just before two years of her
death. It is also proved beyond reasonable
doubt that after some time of marriage the
accused-appellant
was
demanding
a
motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry and
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
harassing the deceased on account of its
non-fulfillment. From their statements it is
also proved that after one and a half months
of marriage the deceased had visited her
parental house and told her parents and
family members regarding demand of
dowry
and
consequent
torture
being
committed by the accused-appellant. From
their deposition it is also proved that they
had persuaded the deceased to go her inlaw's house after scolding her husband
Sugam. It is also proved from the statement
on oath that the information regarding
death was given by accused-appellant and
thereafter all the family members of
accused-appellant escaped from their house
which establishes that accused-appellant
has committed some wrong deed. Lower
court after appraisal of evidence in detail
and invoking the presumption of Section
113-B of Evidence Act has rightly held the
accused-appellant
guilty
for
offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B
I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. It is further contended that learned
court below keeping in view the injury
found in the postmortem report has legally
awarded appropriate sentence which cannot
said to be disproportionate. He has
submitted that the appeal is devoid of
merits and the same is liable to be
dismissed.

14. Firstly, I would like to discuss the
testimony of witnesses of the fact. In this
case informant PW1 Mani Ram (father of
the deceased), PW2 Sita Sharan and PW4
Brij Kishore, both brothers of the deceased)
are witnesses of the fact. PW1 informant
Mani Ram has stated on oath that the
deceased Lalita Devi is his daughter. At the
time of her death she was aged about 21
years. The marriage of the deceased was
solemnized with the accused-appellant
about two years before the occurrence as
per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After some
time of marriage, the accused-appellant and
his family members started demanding a
motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry. His
daughter had told him several times
regarding the demand of motorcycle and
Rs.50,000 as dowry but due to his bad
financial condition he could not meet the
demand of dowry. On the day of
occurrence, the accused-appellant along
with his family members had killed her
daughter by hanging. Accused-appellant
had informed him over phone regarding the
death of his daughter. Thereupon, he along
with his family members reached the
village Aasta where they found the dead
body of his daughter lying on a cot and the
accused-appellant and his family members
had absconded from their house. At the
time of her death, the child of the deceased
was about 6-7 months old. He has further
stated that he got the written complaint
(Ex.Ka.1) written by Kamlesh who read the
same to him thereafter he signed on it and
lodged
the
first
information
report.
Thereafter, inquest of the dead body of his
daughter was conducted in presence of
Shiv Ram Singh, Rajjan, Sita Sharan,
Kamlesh and he also signed on inquest
report (Ex.Ka.2). In cross-examination, he
clarified
that
he
had
received
the
information regarding death of his daughter
at about 08:00 P.M. over phone, thereafter,
he told his wife Smt. Phool Kunwar and his
son Sita Sharan. He had proceeded to
village Aasta from his house at 10 P.M. and
when they reached there, they found the
grandmother of accused-appellant sitting at
the door of the house having the child of
the deceased in her lap. The accusedappellant and other family members have
absconded. He denied the suggestion that
there was any division between accusedappellant and Nandram and they were
living separately. He further clarified that
5 All. Sugam Vs. State of U.P.
31
the dead body of his daughter was lying on
a cot. He had gone to police station to
lodge the report in the morning at 8 AM.
He further stated that he had called
Kamlesh by phone for ascribing the written
complaint who came to him at 10:30 AM at
village Aasta. He further stated that 10-15
persons had gone to village Aasta along
with him. The police had arrived at about
10:00 A.M. at the place of occurrence and
inquired from him and other persons
present there. He has further stated that the
marriage of his daughter has taken place
happily and after farewell in the marriage
his daughter returned to his house after
about 15-20 days and remained in his house
for about one month. Thereafter, she went
to her in-law's house. After about one and a
half months of the marriage when his
daughter returned to his house, she had
complained him regarding demand of
dowry and consequent torture committed
by the accused-appellant. Thereafter, he
persuaded his daughter to go to her in-law's
house and she had gone to her in-law's
house happily. He further stated that his
daughter was taunted by the accusedappellate that her parents had not given
dowry. Perusal of examination-in-chief and
cross-examination of informant Mani Ram
(PW1) reveals that there is no contradiction
regarding demand of motorcycle and
Rs.50,000/- as dowry and consequent
torture committed upon the deceased.
Therefore, the statement of PW1 Mani Ram
wholly inspires confidence and is reliable.
So far as the argument of learned counsel
for the accused-appellant that marriage has
taken place happily is concerned, it is of no
consequence because the demand of
motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- was made by
the accused-appellant after few days of the
marriage. From the statement of PW1, it is
also proved that he had persuaded the
accused-appellant for not demanding the
dowry and had also scolded him. It is also
proved that marriage of the deceased with
the accused-appellant has taken place just
before two years from the appraisal of the
evidence of PW1 Mani Ram.

15. It is proved that the deceased met
with unnatural death within seven years of
marriage and the accused-appellate was
demanding dowry after few days of the
marriage and continued till death of the
deceased.

16. PW2 Sita Sharan is the brother of
the deceased who has deposed that the
marriage of his sister was solemnized with
accused-appellant
on
24.06.2012. The
marriage card (Ex.Ka.3) is on record which
also corroborates his statement. He has also
stated that after marriage the accusedappellant started demanding motorcycle
and Rs.50,000/- as dowry and he used to
assault the deceased on account of its nonfulfillment. He has further stated that
whenever his sister came to her parental
house she used to tell that accusedappellant was demanding motorcycle and
Rs.50,000/-
as
dowry.
He
has
also
corroborated the version of PW1 Mani
Ram that he along with his family members
persuaded the accused-appellant not to
demand dowry but he kept on demanding
the dowry. He had received information on
phone that his sister has died due to
hanging. Thereafter, he reached the village
Aasta and found the dead body of his sister
lying on a cot and the family members of
the accused-appellant have absconded from
their
house.
The
proceedings
of
Panchayatnama had taken place before
him. He has further stated that he reached
at village Aasta at 10:30 PM and informed
the police orally about 11 P.M. At that time
police had not registered the case and had
returned after seeing the dead body and
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
again came at 8 A.M. on the next day. He
has further stated that his father had not
gone to lodge the case in the night. He has
further stated that in the morning two
police personnel had come and got
conducted the inquest on the dead body of
the deceased. In the inquest report
(Ex.Ka.2) it also finds mention that police
had received information on 07.06.2014 at
00:15 A.M. and reached at the place of
occurrence for Panchayatnama at about 8
A.M. PW6 Gulab Singh, Tehsildar has
proved
that
he
had
conducted
the
Panchnama (Ex.Ka.7) on 07.06.2014 and
completed it at 9:30 A.M. Thus, the
statement of PW2 gets corroboration that
police had reached at about 8 A.M. on the
next
day
and
conducted
the
Panchayatnama. He has further stated that
he has complained to Nandram at Aasta
regarding demand of dowry by the
accused-appellant
but
he
had
not
complained it to police authorities. From
the perusal of whole statement of PW2,
there is no contradiction on material point
and his statement is consistent and he has
given the details of persuading the accusedappellant for not demanding motorcycle
and Rs.50,000/- as dowry and not to harass
the deceased. From his statement, it is also
proved that marriage of the deceased was
solemnized with the accused appellant on
24.06.2012 and the deceased met with
unnatural death on 06.06.2014, meaning
thereby, the deceased has died within two
years of marriage and demand of dowry
and consequent torture was being made by
the accused-appellant after few days of
marriage which continued till death of the
deceased.

17. PW4 Brij Kishore, brother of the
deceased, is witness of the fact and he has
deposed that marriage of his sister had
taken place in the year 2012. From the
marriage card and from the statement of
PW2 Sita Sharan, it is proved that marriage
of the deceased was solemnized with the
accused-appellant on 24.06.2012 but due to
pressure of the court atmosphere PW4 has
stated in examination-in-chief that marriage
had taken place on 24.02.2012 which is
insignificant
contradiction.
From
the
perusal of his statement, it appears that he
is illiterate person and has put his thumb
impression on his statement as PW4.
Therefore, such minor contradiction is of
no consequence. He has further stated that
whenever his sister came to her parental
house she used to tell that accusedappellant is demanding a motorcycle and
Rs.50,000/- as dowry and after persuasion
he has sent his sister to her in-law's house.
He has further stated that his sister died on
06.06.2014 and the information regarding
which was given to his brother Sita Sharan
(PW2) over phone. He has further deposed
that other persons also came to know that
his sister died due to hanging and thereafter
he along with several persons had gone to
her in-law's house where his sister was
found lying. He has also deposed that when
they reached the in-law's house of his sister,
the family members of accused-appellant
had absconded. He has further stated that
Daroga Ji had taken the marriage card of
his sister and prepared memo (Ex.Ka.4). He
has also identified his thumb impression on
the memo by which marriage card of the
deceased was taken in possession by the
police. In cross-examination, he has stated
that the accused-appellant is financially
poor. He has further stated that whenever
his sister came to her parental house, every
time they used to persuade his sister and
sent to her in-law's house. Perusal of the
evidence of PW4 reveals that there is no
material contradiction which makes his
statement unreliable. The statement of PW4
is consistent and inspire confidence. It is
5 All. Sugam Vs. State of U.P.
33
proved from his statement that the deceased
has died within two years of marriage due
to unnatural death.
18. PW3 Dr. Udal Srivastava has proved
the postmortem report (Ex.Ka.5) and has
opined that the deceased died due to
asphyxia as a result of hanging. In crossexamination, this witness has stated that
injury nos. 1 & 3 may be caused due to
friction by hard object. He has further
stated that there is least chance of injury
no.2 as a result of suicidal hanging. From
the perusal of internal examination, it is
proved that hyoid bone was found fractured
and the muscles of the neck was damaged.
Dr. Udal Srivastava (PW3) has stated that
the ligature mark found in the neck of the
deceased is rarely found in case of suicidal
death.

19. In above circumstance, keeping
in view the whole evidence I am of the
opinion that the deceased met with
homicidal death. The defence of the
accused-appellant under Section 313
Cr.P.C. is that his wife has suspicion that
he has illicit relationship with some other
women on account of which she used to
quarrel with him and committed suicide
by hanging, but from the perusal of
postmortem report and the statement of
PW3 Dr. Udal Srivastava it is proved that
the deceased has met with homicidal
death and not by suicidal death. From the
perusal of site-plan which is proved by
PW5 Circle Officer Subodh Guatam, it is
proved that he has not found broken door
at the time of preparation of site-plan
which rules out the theory of the suicidal
death, moreover, no evidence has been
given by the defence regarding name of
any women with whom the deceased has
suspected that her husband was having
illicit
relation
and
the
prosecution
witnesses have also not been crossexamined on this point. Therefore, in
above circumstance, the statement of the
accused-appellant under Section 313
Cr.P.C. that his wife has committed
suicide on account of suspicion that her
husband has illicit relation with other
women is nothing but a cock and bull
story. In view of the evidence as analyzed
above, it is proved that the deceased has
met with homicidal death on account of
demand of dowry which comes within the
definition of unnatural death within seven
years of marriage. Therefore, it is proved
that there is proximity between the
demand of dowry and homicidal death of
the deceased. The other circumstance
which is proved beyond reasonable doubt
that accused-appellant and his family
members
have
absconded
after
the
occurrence which also corroborates that
offence was committed by the accusedappellant with the help of his family
members.

20. Here is relevant to reproduce the
Section 304-B I.P.C. which 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 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
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).

(2) Whoever commits dowry
death shall be punished with imprisonment
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for a term which shall not be less than
seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.

21. Section 113-B of the Indian
Evidence Act reads as under :-

"113-B. 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 with, any demand for dowry,
the Court shall presume that such person had
caused the dowry death."

Explanation.--For the purposes of
this section, "dowry death" shall have the
same meaning as in section 304-B of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

22. The conjoint effect of the provisions
contained in Section 304-B IPC and Section
113-B of Indian Evidence Act is that if the
prosecution seeks conviction of a person for
the offence of dowry death, it is obliged to
prove as to the following facts :-

(a) The death :

(i) is of a married woman;

(ii) has occurred within the seven
years of marriage of the victim;

(iii) is caused by burns or bodily
injury, or has occurred otherwise than under
normal circumstances; and

(b) Cruelty or harassment was
meted out to the victim:

(i) by her husband or any of his
relatives;

(ii) for or in connection with any
demand for dowry; and

(iii) soon before her death.

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
dealing with the case of dowry death in the
case of Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab
[reported in (2008) 13 SCC 233], has held
that "In cases of dowry deaths and suicides,
circumstantial evidence plays an important
role and inferences can be drawn on the
basis of such evidence. That could be either
direct or indirect. It is further held that
agreement
of
dowry
is
not
always
necessary even demand of dowry and other
ingredients being satisfied."

24. In the case of Bachni Devi and
another vs. State of Haryana through
Secretary of Home Department [reported
in 2011 (2) ACC 3 SC], the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that where it is proved by
evidence that the deceased met with
unnatural death (suicidal or homicidal)
within seven years of marriage and it is
shown that accused were demanding dowry
then it will be presumed that accused has
committed the dowry death.

25. In above circumstances, from the
evidence on record following facts are
proved beyond reasonable doubt:-

(i) That the deceased met with
homicidal death because of hyoid bone
being fractured, muscles of neck and cartrid
artery was also found damaged and injury
was found on the face.

(ii) That the deceased met with
unnatural death within seven years of
marriage.

(iii) That the accused-appellant
was
demanding
motorcycle
and
Rs.50,000/- just after the marriage which
continued till death of the deceased.

26.

In
above
circumstances,
ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. is
satisfied and the presumption against
accused shall arise that he has committed
the dowry death of the deceased. So far as
5 All. Chhunna Vs. State of U.P.
35
the
evidence
of
DW1
Gulab
Rani,
grandmother of the accused-appellant, is
concerned, she has not given any evidence
regarding suspicion of deceased that
accused-appellant has illicit relationship
with other women. She has only stated that
accused-appellant was not present at the
time of occurrence. She has also admitted
that at the time of death of the deceased,
the deceased has a child of about 6-7
months old. She has admitted that the
deceased was not suffering from any
illness. Likewise, DW2 Munna Lal has also
stated that deceased has committed suicide
by bolting the door from inside the room,
but no such thing like broken door has been
found by the Circle Officer Subodh Gautam
(PW5) at the time of preparation of siteplan, therefore, in above circumstance the
defence witnesses are unreliable and no
reliance can be placed on their evidence.

27. I am in agreement with the finding
recorded by the court below that accusedappellant is guilty for offence punishable under
Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. I am also in agreement
with the finding of the court below that from the
evidence on record it is also proved that the
deceased met with homicidal death and the
court below has rightly sentenced the accusedappellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
10 years under Section 304-B I.P.C., to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years and a
fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo further
imprisonment for two months under Section
498-A
I.P.C.
and
to
undergo
rigorous
imprisonment for two years and a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo further
imprisonment for three months under Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, which cannot be said
to be disproportionate.

28. For the foregoing reasons, I find
no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed,
accordingly. Consequently, the impugned
judgment of conviction dated 03.02.2018
and order of sentence dated 09.02.2018
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Jhansi
against the accused-appellant is, hereby,
confirmed and maintained.

29. Let a copy of this order along with
the lower court record be transmitted
forthwith to the learned trial court for
compliance.
----------
(2022)05ILR A35
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH TRIPATHI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 1996

Chhunna ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.C. Dwivedi, Sri Deepak Singh, Sri
Rahul Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-challenge
to
-conviction-accused
committed
murder of the deceased by fatal blow of
knife-PW-2 is the sole eye-witness of
the occurrence, who is the son of the
deceased-evidence
of
PW-2
is
corroborated
by
PW-6
who
had
recovered blood stained knife on the
pointing out of the accused-PW-2 had no
animus to implicate accused falsely-on
the basis of solitary witness PW-2,