Judgment - Section 304B - Dowry Death

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

JUSTICE Rohit B. Deo

Raju Vs. State Of Maharashtra On 29 January 2018

Law Point:
Section 498A — Cruelty — Dowry death — Accidental burns — Dying declaration — Acquittal under Section 306, IPC — Death within 7 years of marriage — Sessions Judge could not have relied upon verbal and written statements of deceased to convict accused under Section 498A, IPC — Judgment and order of conviction unsustainable and set aside.

JUDGEMENT

The challenge is to the judgment and order dated 7.2.2004 rendered by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial 782/1997, by and under which, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to payment of fine of Rs. 1,000. The appellant is however, acquitted of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Smt. Shantabai and Smt. Malu w/o Sureshrao Thakare, the mother and sister of the accused who faced trial along with accused, are acquitted of both the offences.

2. Heard Mr. N.R. Saboo, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.P. Maldhure, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

3. Mr. N.R. Saboo, learned Counsel for the accused submits that the judgment and order impugned rests on inadmissible evidence and is liable to be set aside on this short ground. The submission is, that the learned Sessions Judge having recorded a finding, relying on dying declaration (Exhibit 55), which dying declaration was suppressed by the prosecution, that the death of Vandana is accidental and not suicidal, the verbal and written statements of the deceased Vandana were not admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, qua the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, since neither the cause of death nor the circumstances of the transactions leading to the death, was in issue. Mr. N.R. Saboo, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following observations of the Apex Court in Kantilal Martaji Pandor v. State of Gujarat, VII (2013) SLT 102=III (2013) DLT (CRL.) 927 (SC)=(2013) 8 SCC 781, to buttress the submission that the entire evidence on which the conviction is founded, is inadmissible.

“17. The question that we have, therefore, to decide is whether the Court could have arrived at this finding that the appellant has starved the deceased and committed various acts of mental cruelty towards the deceased only on the basis of the contents of the letter dated 26.3.1992 written by the deceased to the Police station. The letter written by the deceased on 26.3.1992 could be relevant only under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that a statement, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, is relevant when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. The High Court in the present case has already held that the appellant was not guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased and was, therefore, not guilty of the offence under Section 306, IPC. As the cause of the death of the deceased is no more in question in the present case, the statements made by the deceased in the letter dated 26.3.1992 to the police station cannot be taken to be proof of cruel acts committed by the appellant for the purpose of holding him guilty under Section 498A, IPC.

18. For taking this view, we are supported by the decision of this Court in Inderpal v. State of M.P. In this case, Inderpal was charged and tried for the offence under Section 306, IPC, and convicted by the Trial Court for the said offence of abetment of suicide.

In the appeal filed by Inderpal, the High Court found that the offence under Section 306, IPC was not made out as it could not be held that death of the deceased was due to commission of suicide, but the High Court held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 498A, IPC. This finding of the High Court was based on the evidence of the father, mother, sister and another relative of the deceased who deposed on the basis of inter alia the two letters (Exts. P7 and P8) written by the deceased Damyanti that Inderpal, her husband, had subjected her to beating. This Court found that apart from the statement attributed to the deceased, none of the witnesses had spoken of anything which they had seen directly and the question that this Court had to decide was whether the statement attributed to the deceased could be used as evidence including the contents of Exts.P7 and P8 and this Court held that the contents of Exts. P7 and P8 written by the deceased could not be treated as proof of the acts of cruelty by Inderpal for the purpose of offence under Section 498A, IPC. The reasons given by this Court in Para 7 of the judgment as reported in SCC are as follows: (Inderpal case, SCC p.739)

“7. Unless the statement of a dead person would fall within the purview of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act there is no other provision under which the same can be admitted in evidence. In order to make the statement of a dead person admissible in law (written or verbal) the statement must be as to the cause of her death or as to any of the circumstance of the transactions which resulted in her death, in cases in which the cause of death comes into question. By no stretch of imagination can the statements of Damyanti contained in Exts. P7 or Ext. P8 and those quoted by the witnesses be connected with any circumstance of the transaction which resulted in her death. Even that apart, when we are dealing with an offence under Section 498A, IPC disjuncted from the offence under Section 306, IPC the question of her death is not an issue for consideration and on that premise also Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act will stand at bay so far as these materials are concerned.”

4. Mr. V.P. Maldhure, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supports the judgment and order impugned. The submission is, that the evidence on record is cogent and reliable and the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused subjected the deceased Vandana to cruelty within the meaning of Explanation (a) of Section 498A of IPC. The evidence of the relatives apart, P.W. 9 Anant Dayaramji Khandar, the Police Patil of the village, has deposed that when Vandana was taken to the hospital in autorickshaw, he accompanied her and Vandana disclosed that she was ill-treated.

5. The learned Sessions Judge has relied on dying declaration (Exhibit55) which was recorded by the Executive Magistrate in the hospital, and which dying declaration absolves the accused of any blame. The dying declaration Exhibit 55 recites that Vandana suffered accidental burns. The dying declaration (Exhibit 55) was suppressed by the prosecution.

However, having recorded a finding that the death was accidental, the learned Sessions Judge, has convicted the accused relying on the letters written by Vandana to her brother and the disclosures made by Vandana to her family members which speak of the accused abusing and assaulting Vandana under the influence of liquor. One incident, which is a common thread in the testimonies of the relatives is that of the accused throwing hot dal on the person of Vandana.

6. The prosecution has examined P.W. 4 Narendra Champatroa Ingale, the younger brother of the deceased, P.W. 5 Ganesh Champatrao Ingale, the elder brother of the deceased, who lodged report dated 29.12.1996 (Exhibit-44), P.W. 6 Rajendra Champatrao Ingale, the elder brother of the deceased, P.W. 7 Sou. Sunita, the wife of Narendra, who did not support the prosecution, was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned A.P.P., P.W. 8 Smt. Panchafulabai Champatrao Ingale, mother of the deceased, P.W. 9 Anant Dayaramji Khandar, the Police Patil who is examined to prove the oral dying declaration made by Vandana when she was taken to the hospital, P.W. 10 Sudhir Champatrao Ingale, the brother of the deceased, P.W. 11, the brother-in-law of the deceased and P.W. 12 Sou. Ranjana w/o Dnyaneshwar Kale, the elder sister of the deceased, to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty.

7. Concededly, the deceased Vandana and the accused entered into matrimonial alliance on 5.6.1992 and the death occurred on 27.12.1996, within 7 years of the marriage. I have given my anxious consideration to the evidence on record, and having done so, I am inclined to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the accused Mr. N.R. Saboo that the conviction is based entirely on in-admissible evidence. The ill-treatment or harassment is not witnessed by any of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is on the basis of what is narrated to them by the deceased Vandana. The prosecution also relies of two letters Exhibit 45 and Exhibit 47 addressed by the deceased Vandana to her elder brother Ganesh. It is trite law, that the verbal or written statements of Vandana would not be admissible in evidence under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act since neither the cause of death nor the circumstances of the transactions leading to death, was in issue. The learned Sessions Judge having recorded a finding that the death was accidental and having acquitted the accused of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, could not have relied upon the verbal and written statements of the deceased to convict the accused under Section 498A of the IPC.

8. The judgment and order of conviction is unsustainable and is set aside.

9. The bail bond of the accused shall stand discharged and the fine paid by the accused, if any, shall be refunded.

10. The appeal is allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for  consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us