Fourteen Long Years

One more rational decision under section 304b and 498a of Indian Penal Code.

Delhi court acquitted Dinesh along with his other four family members of the charges of cruelly treating his wife for dowry death.

ADJ Pulastya Pramachala absolved East Delhi residents Dinesh Kumar Gautam, an air force employee with four other family members.

Dinesh and his family members were charged for the offences of woman subjected to cruelty by husband and his family members under section 498A Indian Penal Code and dowry death under section 304B  of the Indian Penal Code.

The judge said, "I find the allegations of demand and consequential cruelty and harassment are not based on any concrete facts and they have remained like general and vague allegations without having any corroboration,", while freeing the accused husband Dinesh and in-laws of deceased Savita, who was found hanging in her matrimonial house in 2000.

The court seriously relied on the statement made by Savita's daughter, who was present in the house when this unpleasant incident happened. daughter of the deceased stated that neither there was any dowry demand nor any such dispute between her grandmother and her mother had taken place.

"A tussle between a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, on grounds other than those related to dowry or other unlawful demands, is not a very uncommon feature of Indian households."

Society and time has changed a lot during the last few years how significant is the relation between daughter in law and mother in law is to be taken in to consideration.

Though the court stated in it’s judgement "However, all such tussles cannot be given color of an act of cruelty, so as to drive the victim to commit suicide, nor such tussle can be treated to be cruelty or harassment related with any unlawful demand".

The court observed that the suicide note of Savita did not allege any cruelty or dowry demand by her husband and in-laws. "From the suicide note, I find that there is no whisper of any kind of demand being made by the accused persons from the deceased (Savita). According to court since Savita was not happy for some reasons in her matrimonial house this is not appropriate to implicate the husband and his family members for convicted them for that they have not done.

According to the prosecution, on November 4, 2000, the woman was found hanging at her matrimonial house and her mother-in-law and other family members informed her parents who then lodged a complaint under section 498A Indian Penal Code and dowry death under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code with the police.

Savita‘s father told police that Savita (deceased) was harassed by her in-laws on account of dowry demands. Allegation made that Savita died after the torture of her in-laws. The mother and neighbours of the woman also deposed on the same lines but the noble court was not satisfied with the argument made by prosecution.

Defence stated that Savita and Dinesh were not residing with other family members who were made accused with Dinesh as he used to keep getting posted in various regions due to the nature of his job and hence the question of harassment did not arise and thus genuine.

The judge observed that on being aware of the fact that she was being beaten or harassed by her in-laws, why Savita’s father who himself is a business man didn't he take any action. "I am unable to comprehend that how could prosecution witness 2 (father of the deceased) remain action-less despite being told about such serious allegations by his daughter," the judge said.

In my opinion now a days it has become a tradition when a women dies unnaturally with in seven years of marriage her parental side files a case under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and if a women is not happy with her husband and other family members, falsely implicate the in laws under section 498a of Indian Penal Code.

Please take care of the sensitive gender bias issues in very delicate manner.

Arti suicide case

Section 304b dowry death of indian penal code

Once again a case under section 304b dowry death of indian penal code has been lodged when a 22 year old Aarti hanged herself from the ceiling fan and yet again accused is her husband Nitin. The deceased's father Inderpal singh claimed his daughter is murdered for dowry demand.

Arti before her death wrote a suicide note that is being under forensic examination. 

The whole incident is from Gurgaon and the investigation officer is ASI Dilbag Singh.

Now we have to see where investigation goes rationally or gender comes in to existence once again since the case is under section 304b indian penal code. which i earlier stated is the most responsible case of ipc  and should be taken care of in the same manner.

rational judgement on 304b and 498a

304B Dowry Death and 498A Dowry Demand and Cruelty

New Delhi

I praise Justice Pawan Kumar Jain for delivering a rational decision on a very sensitive, responsible and volatile issues i.e 304B Dowry Death and 498A Dowry Demand and Cruelty.  It would definitely be relief to an innocent man Mohan Lal and his parents for not being punished for what they have not done !!!! that too under section 304B and 498A of indian penal code.

According to Justice Jain prosecution has failed to prove that deceased was tortured soon before her death. Case was registered in mechanical manner by the father of the deceased. Should not concerned court take self cognizance over the false case registered by father of the deceased misguiding the court and society and defaming a socially responsible family by dragging them in to shameful case under section 304B Dowry Death and 498A Dowry Demand and Cruelty

The detailed order can be found in delhi court.

304B Dowry Death

Justice delayed is justice denied. What if justice is delayed for fifteen precious years of men's life. What if justice delay can cause a young man turned in to old man.

kamlesh weds gurudayal on 10 December 1993. Few years after marriage they had a daughter. On 7 august 1999 after a span of nearly six years, Kamlesh died unnaturally in the hospital and statement of the deceased recorded as well. Since this death took place within seven years of marriage (ironically almost six years everything was fine) and unnatural case under section 304B (Dowry Death) was constituted against Gurudayal. Session court in his judgement on 27 may 2006 found Gurudayal guilty and sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment. Gurudayal appealed to High Court and defence argued that main constituent of Dowry Death is that, Prosecution has to prove beyond doubt that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty soon before her death. In this case prosecution failed to prove this. And Gurudayal acquitted from the charges from the high court. Justice done?

What about fifteen valuable years. Think about it.

Detailed judgement can be seen in high court site.  

another case of 304B Dowry Death

Curse of 304b dowry death

Every woman dies unnaturally within seven years of marriage is dowry death ????????????

New case has come in to news from Andhra Pradesh where a 23 years old lady commits suicide in A.P. 

Rubeena Begum from Rajendranagar committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan. Deceased was married to Abdul Basith in 2012 and couple has a one year old son, information has been lodged by the deceased family under section 304B Dowry Death under indian penal code. 

Abdul Basith and his other family members are in judicial custody. 304B Dowry Death is very responsible section of indian penal code and please take it as it is, don't make a scene of it please.I now think what state of mind people be in if they are innocent. what happens to a infant of one year of age. please think rationally. don't bias.

New Case of 304B Dowry Death

Curse of 304b dowry death

Yet another case of 304B(Dowry Death), 498A (Dowry Demand and Cruelty). Case is from Madanpura, Mohali where a 24 year old lady committed suicide by consuming poison at her house. Maninder Singh and Manpreet wedded in 2012. Manpreet committed suicide within seven years of marriage and since suicide comes under unnatural death. Therefore, a case under section 304B i.e. dowry death and 498A cruelty in connection with dowry demand is registered against Maninder Singh and others. Case is registered by father (informant) of the deceased Manpreet Kaur.

This case is under investigation. 

I once again request the concerned people to please investigate the case rationally. Please do not have any bias to any gender. Indian constitution is equal for every citizen. I request do not spare the culprit and please do the justice if accused is innocent. please.........

304B Dowry Death Causes

Curse of 304b dowry death

An innocent man can fall in to the trap of 304B, Dowry Death when his wife dies with in seven years of marriage in an unnatural way. sometimes women becomes extravagantly demanding after marriage and all the time husband remains at receiving end just to save his matrimonial life. I have come across many times of this kind of scenario. An egoist wife may turn more and more voilent  sometimes which leads her to unsound state of mind. That can result in to suicidal tendency. 

Let us look in to a statement made by honorable Justice of Apex Court, respected Justice Dhingra  

"Suicide is a known phenomenon of human nature. Suicides are committed by living human beings for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life".

This suicide creates 304B Dowry Death in many cases and yet again an innocent man goes behind the bar leaving behind everything he owns physically, socially, economically etc.

The judgement of consideration may seen at 

Petition No.555/2003

Narender Singh Arora                           Petitioner Versus

State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors.       Respondents Counsels

I once again humbly request to responsible citizens of this country  to please come forward against the misuse of 304B Dowry Death.

304B in sessions courts.

Curse of 304b dowry death

In a judgment the Apex court bench of Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya said that prosecution has to prove, besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death under section 304B i.e. dowry death.

But this gender bias law is so viral and fatal that lower judicial system of this country is not immune to this and the judges of sessions courts are not gutsy enough to pass rational judgement on this issue i.e. 304B (Dowry Death). I have come across so many judgements in which so called accused, the husband, is being victimized. I can not understand why  people of this country don't stand up against use of this law as torturing machine.

 I have quoted the judgement of the honorable judges of apex court in which they have clearly stated that it is responsibility of the prosecution to prove that deceased had been subjected to cruelty but now a days in sessions courts responsibility has been shifted to innocent accused to prove the things he has not done in 304B and 498A. How a man can prove a thing he has not done. 

I request people of this country to raise your voice to save innocent men whose life, career, social status all are at stake and jeopardized by this lethal weapon called 304B and 498A.

Delay in judicial system

Curse of 304b dowry death

Most important issue which is related to the slow judicial procedure in india. The said dowry death took place on 06.09 1989. The Trial Court pronounced its decision on 03.10.1991 after two years of Janki Devi’s death.

The first appeal happened to be decided by the High Court on 05.07.2004 which is more than 12 years later. A petition for special leave to appeal was filed in the Apex Court in 2004 and  leave was granted only after a time gap of 4 years in 2008.
Thereafter this appeal was listed for hearing in 2008 instead of a petition of 2004 thereby passing 4 years of its age in this Court. And after listing of the case it  took another 5 years for its disposal, a total of nine years spent in the Court after filing the case. This much time can easily jeopardize career, mental, physical behavior of any innocent person. So it is my sincere request to all citizen of this country to take necessary action on their part. 

Entire judgement can be read on apex court site under.

Criminal Appeal No.1022 of 2008 (Supreme Court of India)

prove cruelty beyond reasonable doubt

Curse of 304b dowry death

 

 The Supreme Court has said that for seeking the conviction of a person accused of causing dowry death, the prosecution has to produce evidence that establishes that the demand for dowry was coupled with acts of harassment and cruelty.

For the court to draw the presumption that the accused had caused the dowry death, the "prosecution has to prove, besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death",  order passed by the apex court bench of Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya.

Order of relevance is as follows

Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India Vipin Jaiswal(A-I) vs State Of A.P. Rep.By ... on 13 March, 2013 Author: A Patnaik Bench: A.K. Patnaik, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1431 OF 2007

VIPIN JAISWAL(A-I) Appellant (s)

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. REP.BY PUB.PROSECUTOR Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

A.K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 11th December, 2006 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2003.

2. The facts briefly are that an FIR was lodged by Gynaneshwar Jaiswal on 4.4.1999 at 2.15 p.m. in Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad. In the FIR it was stated by the informant that his daughter Meenakshi Jaiswal was married to the appellant on 22.2.1996 and at the time of marriage he gave sufficient gold jewellery, silver items, furniture, electrophinic gadgets etc., worth above Rs.2,50,000/- but ever since her marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband Vipin Jaiswal, her husband's parents Prem Kumar Jaiswal and Yashoda Bai and her husband's sister Supriya and her husband and they all brutally assaulted her on innumerable occasions for not getting sufficient dowry. It was further stated in the FIR that on 2.4.1999 the informant received a call from the appellant and he went to the house of the appellant along with his relatives to find out what had happened as well as to give invitation for a function at his place but they all abused him and the appellant physically assaulted and pushed him out from the house but fearing the safety of his daughter and her welfare, he did not report the matter to the police. It is further stated in the FIR that on 4.4.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. when he came back home, he was informed on telephone by his son that Meenakshi had received severe burn injuries and as a result died in the house of the appellant. The police registered a Criminal Case under Section 304B, IPC and took up investigation and submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant and his other relatives under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC.

3. At the trial, besides other witnesses, the prosecution examined the father of the deceased (informant) as PW 1, the cousin of PW 1 as PW 2 and the mother of the deceased as PW 4. The appellant volunteered to be a witness and got examined himself as DW 1 and took the defence that the deceased had left behind a suicide note written by her one day before her death in which she has stated that she had committed suicide not on account of any harassment by the appellant and her family members but due to the harassment by her own parents. The Trial Court, however, disbelieved the defence and convicted the appellant and his other relatives under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC. The Trial Court in particular held that there was material that two days prior to the death of the deceased, her father (PW1) and his relative (PW2) were called by her and told that she has been harassed by the appellant and her in laws for not being paid the amount demanded by the appellant and when PWs 1 and 2 went to the house of the appellant, they were abused by the appellant and on 4.4.1999,

Vipin Jaiswal(A-I) vs State Of A.P. Rep.By ... on 13 March, 2013

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167568223/ 1

PW 1 and others were informed by one Suresh Kumar, a neighbour of the appellant, about the incident. From the aforesaid and other evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the deceased was subjected to torture and harassment by the accused, mainly for the reason that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was not given to the appellant by PW 1. The appellant and other relatives of the appellant carried Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2003 before the High Court and by the impugned judgment, the High Court acquitted the two other relatives of the appellant (A2 and A3) but maintained the conviction of the appellant under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC.

4. At the hearing before us, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings of the Trial Court and of the High Court with regard to the demand of dowry are in relation to the demand of Rs.50,000/-. He submitted that this demand of Rs.50,000/- is not mentioned in the FIR (Ext. P1). He further submitted that in any case, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 is clear that this demand of Rs.50,000/- by the appellant was not a dowry demand but an amount which the appellant wanted from the family of the deceased to purchase a computer and set up his own business. He further submitted that the Trial Court and the High Court ought not to have disbelieved the suicide note (Ext. D19) which was in the handwriting of the deceased as proved by DW1. In this context, he explained that the signature on the suicide note (Ext. D19) purporting to be that of the deceased, tallied with the signature of the deceased in Ext. D1 which was a hall ticket issued by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University for an examination which the deceased took in March, 1998.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that both the Trial Court and the High Court have discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in particular, the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 to establish that there was demand of dowry of not only Rs.50,000/- but other items as well. He further submitted that Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines 'dowry' as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the parties to the marriage. He submitted that the expression âin connection with the marriage of the parties to the marriageâ is wide enough to cover the demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the appellant for purchase of a computer. He further submitted that so far as the suicide note (Ext. D19) is concerned, the same cannot be believed to have been written by the deceased who was only a matriculate and the High Court has given good reasons in the impugned judgment why the suicide note cannot be believed to have been written by the deceased. He argued that in any case only on the basis of the evidence given by DW1, the Court cannot hold that the suicide note had been written by the deceased and not by someone else. He submitted that since the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased had been subjected to not only a demand of dowry but also cruelty soon before her death, the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly held the appellant guilty both under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC.

6. We have perused the evidence of PW 1 and PW 4, the father and mother of the deceased respectively. We find that PW 1 has stated that at the time of marriage, gold, silver articles, ornaments, T.V., fridge and several other household articles worth more than Rs.2,50,000/- were given to the appellant and after the marriage, the deceased joined the appellant in his house at Kagaziguda. He has, thereafter, stated that the appellant used to work in a xerox cum type institute in Nampally and in the sixth month after marriage, the deceased came to their house and told them that the appellant asked her to bring Rs.50,000/- from them as he was intending to purchase a computer and set up his own business. Similarly, PW4 has stated in her evidence that five months after the marriage, the appellant sent her away to their house and when she questioned her, she told that the appellant was demanding Rs.50,000/- and that the demand for money is to purchase a computer to start his own business. Thus, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 is that the demand of Rs.50,000/- by the appellant was made six months after the marriage and that too for purchasing a computer to start his own business. It is only with regard to this demand of Rs.50,000/- that the Trial Court has recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant for the offence under Section 304B, IPC and it is only in relation to this demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of a computer to start a business made by the appellant six months after the marriage that the High Court has also confirmed the findings of the Trial Court with regard to guilt of the appellant under Section 304B, IPC. In our view, both the Trial Court and the High Court failed to appreciate that the demand, if at all made by the appellant on the deceased for purchasing a computer to start a business six months after the

Vipin Jaiswal(A-I) vs State Of A.P. Rep.By ... on 13 March, 2013

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167568223/ 2

marriage, was not in connection with the marriage and was not really a 'dowry demand' within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This Court has held in Appasaheb & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721:

âIn view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (See Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd., AIR (1996) SC 3509 and Chemicals and Fibres of India v. Union of India, AIR (1997) SC 558).â

7. In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the offences under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in particular PW1 and PW4, we find that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased. On the other hand, DW1 in his evidence has stated that on 4.4.1999, the day when the incident occurred, he went to the nearby temple along with his mother (A2) and his father (A3) went to the bazar to bring ration and his wife (deceased) alone was present at the house and at about 1.00 p.m., they were informed by somebody that some smoke was coming out from their house and their house was burning. Immediately he and his mother rushed to their house and by that time there was a huge gathering at the house and the police was also present. He and his family members were arrested by the police and after one month they were released on bail. What DW1 has further stated is relevant for the purpose of his defence and is quoted hereinbelow:

âWhile cleaning our house we found a chit on our dressing table. The said chit was written by my wife and it is in her handwriting and it also contains her signature. Ex. D 19 is the said chit. I identified the handwriting of my wife in Ex. D19 because my wife used to write chits for purchasing of monthly provisions as such on tallying the said chit and Ex. D19 I came to know that it was written by my wife only. Immediately I took the Ex. D19 to the P.S. Mangalhat and asked them to receive but they refused to take the same.â

From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that while cleaning the house the appellant came across a chit written in the handwriting of his wife and containing her signature. This chit has been marked as Ext. D19 and the appellant has identified the handwriting and signature of the deceased in Ext. D19 which is written in Hindi. The English translation of Ext.D19 reproduced in the impugned judgment of the High Court is extracted hereinbelow:

âI, Meenakshi W/o Vipin Kumar, do hereby execute and commit to writing this in my sound mind, consciousness and senses and with my free will and violation to the effect that nobody is responsible for my death. My parents family members have harassed much to my husband. I am taking this step as I have fed up with his life. Due to me the quarrels are taking place here, as such I want to end my life and I beg to pardon by all.â

It appears from Ext. D19 that the deceased has written the chit according to her free will saying that nobody was responsible for her death and that her parents and family members have harassed her husband and she was taking the step as she was fed up with her life and because of her quarrels were taking place.

Vipin Jaiswal(A-I) vs State Of A.P. Rep.By ... on 13 March, 2013

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167568223/ 3

8. When the appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, has said in his evidence as DW1 that the aforesaid chit (Ext. D19) has been written by the deceased herself and has been signed by her and it also appears from his evidence quoted above that he was acquainted with her handwriting and signature, the Trial Court and the High Court could have recorded a finding one way or the other by comparing her handwriting and signature with some of her other handwritings and signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. In the alternative, the Trial Court and the High Court could have sought for an expert's opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act on whether the handwriting and signature were that of the deceased. But unfortunately, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court have resorted to these provisions of the Evidence Act and instead by their own imaginary reasoning disbelieved the defence of the appellant that Ext.D19 could not have been written by the deceased.

9. In our considered opinion, the evidence of DW1 (the appellant) and Ext.D19 cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A, IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been made out by the prosecution.

10. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and that of the Trial Court and direct that the bail bond furnished by the appellant shall stand discharged.

............................J.

(A.K. PATNAIK)

............................J.

(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI,

MARCH 13, 2013