The Supreme Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased against the Jharkhand High Court's judgement upholding the Trial Court's decision convicting them under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 3 years respectively.
FACTS:
The informant had gotten his daughter married to the appellant in 1997. It came under notice that within a few months of the wedlock, the mother-in-law of the deceased daughter had started to manipulate and harass the deceased by threatening her to either pay the sum of Rs. 20,000 /- along with a Motor cycle or her son would be married off to someone else. The inability of the deceased’s parents to do so led to a period of assault and then the suspicious missing of the deceased. After the missing complaint was filed with the police by the father of the deceased, a charge sheet was filed against the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased under Sections 304/201/34 of IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. A skeleton later found in the river was assumed to be of Fulwa Devi herself.
THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED:
The Supreme Court stated that due to the unsatisfied and inefficient evidence by the accused, the it shall presume that the persons who had harassed the deceased ‘soon before’ her death have caused dowry death within meaning of section 304B IPC. The death caused was unnatural and was caused right after (this doesn’t mean immediately after but refers to the circumstances leading to it) the demands of dowry were made.
The recovered body clearly is an indication of an abnormal death and the fact that she was missing before from her matrimonial house can only be explained by the three accused. In regards to the husband of the deceased, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and the Trial Court stating that the Courts “have rightly raised a presumption against him under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act which prescribes that the Court shall presume that a person has caused a dowry death of a woman if it is shown that soon before her death, she had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry.”
The criminal appeal filed by the husband was thus dismissed by the Supreme Court and was told to surrender within 4 weeks to complete his sentence.
However, for the mother-in-law, the court was unable to find any rigid allegations and evidence against her except threatening the deceased. The Supreme Court noted that, “from the evidence on record only certain omnibus allegations have been made against her with respect to dowry demands. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to indicate any specific allegations, nor point to any specific evidence or testimony against her."
Since, the only direct evidence before the Court was the mention by the father of the victim) that threatened to harm the deceased, the top court allowed mother-in-law’s appeal and released her from detainment.
Bench: CJI. N.V. Ramana, J. Surya Kant and J. Hima Kohli
Judgement by: Justice Hima Kohli
Case title: Parvati Devi v. State of Bihar now Jharkhand and others
Ram Sahay Mahto v. State of Bihar now Jharkhand and others
Case details: Crl.A. No.-000574-000574 / 2012
Petitioner’s Advocate: Anagha S. Desai
Respondent’s Advocate: Tapesh Kumar Singh
Dated: December 17, 2021
Read Judgement:
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments