Case Brief: State of Rajasthan vs Jaggu Ram Appeal (crl) 1133 of 2000.
Deciding authority: Supreme Court of India.
Case No : Appeal (crl) 1133 of 2000.
Bench : JusticeG.P Mathur, G.S Singhvi.
Date of Judgement: 04/01/2008.
FACTS:
The appeal was against the judgment of the Single Judge of High Court of Rajasthan, for acquitting the respondents of the charges under S.304- B, S.201 of IPC. The brief facts are, one Shanti@ Gokul,( deceased) daughter of Atma Ram (PW1) was married eighteen months prior to her death to Jeevan Ram son of Jagadish Ballan( Jaggu Ram), the respondent herein . thereafter the deceased resided at her in – law home at Nathur. She had been frequently harassed by her father in law and mother in law, on demand of dowry, as a result of it she was send to Abhwas, her hometown. Subsequently a meeting by the village heads were held whereby both the families were compromised and the deceased was sent to Nathur. Even after that she was subjected to cruelty which was strongly condemned by the villagers. On 30.3. 1993 Atma Ram(pw1) was informed about his daughter’s death, and before he could arrive to the place with relatives , his daughters dead body was cremated. Based on the complaint made by the PW1 charges was filled against the accused under S. 498A, 304B, 201 of IPC. The medical report stated that the accused died of head injury and a lathi was also discovered from the house. On an examination by the Trial Court under S.313 of CrPc the A1 Jeevan Ram, went out of station for exam on 29.3.1993 and based on it was acquitted and the other A1 and A2 Jaggu Ram and his wife Nathi were convicted. Based on the acquittal of A1 the single judge of High Court discharged the respondents of the charge of S.304 –B and 201 of IPC.
JUDGEMENT:
Justice Singhvi, observed that based on the trial conducted by the Magistrate court and the judgment of the High Court, the bench has to have a keen observation of the on the following questions to decide whether it amounts to dowry death,
- Whether the deceased died of the injuries inflicted in her body?
- Has the deceased died within seven years of marriage?
- Was the deceased subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection to dowry prior to her death?
- Had the alleged accused involved in acts of destroying the evidence such as cremation of the dead body before a proper medical examination?
In the instant case there has been evidence sufficient to prove the above mentioned conditions to have been occurred. S. 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act says that soon before the death if the deceased is subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry it attracts S. 304-B of IPC. As held in the case of State of AP vs Rajgopala Aswa & Ors.[ 2004(4) SCC470]. Arun Garg vs State of Punjab [2004(8) SCC251], the court has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the death of the victim and decide whether there is any proximate connection between the demand of dowry, the act of cruelty or harassment and the death. From the recordings of the trial court by the statement of PW-20 Dr. Shayam Lal Khuteta, the deceased suffered from two head injuries, of which one was to be inflicted by a hard object, and the lathi which was confiscated from the house where the incident happened proves to the point. And the was no sufficient evidence to prove that the deceased suffered from epilepsy. Since there was no question about the acquittal of the accused Jeevan Ram, the bench allows the appeal,the impugned judgment is set aside and the conviction of the respondent under Section 304-B read with 201, IPC is restored. He is sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. He shall also pay fine of Rs.500/- and suffer further imprisonment of three months in case of default. If the respondent has already undergone sentence of one year under Section 498A, IPC in furtherance of the judgment of the High Court, then he shall serve out six years imprisonment, apart from paying fine.
DECISION:
The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside restoring the conviction of the respondent under S.304 –B read with 201 of IPC, following the respondent shall be immediately taken into custody to serve his sentence.
BY
A.SRI RAMYA, Vth year SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW.