W HEGH CE3L3RT 9F CHHR‘TTISGJEaFRH $§T $§LR$PUR $8: Hmi’we Mr,'§‘.P.§harmai-JJ grimina§ Agmeal Nan 43% 0f 2%6 Manmaéihuram Vishwas and others VERSUS NK‘JN APPUQANT M S'taée 9f Chha’riisgafh JUDQMENT &E PQSTED FOR PRQNOUNGEMENT 5W €~2§3QE§ (f K ‘ T.P.Sharma ‘ " Judge N Sd/- “ I WH CQQRT 0g S‘JLAT?§$$ARH RT §§k§a§§wi e3 §$§3 Lb)“ ia M* r” Immmwi a' Cr§m'ma§ Am3ea§ N9. $59 9f 29% x“ M imuvl S wwn V§s sx ageJ om h .a glo 0 wars acciicn — cuivation {Retdh ea RIG vmage Bami’a P. Chakradhamagar, DIS‘Riat, Raigarh \\ 'pr a “haa wayzww; m xl’w um ij Tc’e . o u.3.’ w is dii’ectad amm" «he gudgmeni‘ 0f conviciion 51m: a wder 3 f‘eate?ase a'aEec: 31.5.2S§:: passed by the Add§tiana% $e3s§onS mge mazgas’h, :i Ses-sicm HM \lo @GM20i35 xnhweby u V b I ms em; pun &ble under Sect? ~ 3043!?24 m‘ am l aemenced 1. ’za umdey‘go rigcmus Empg'isc “maxi. it x J D( 'J 4. is challemgc—aai 3i“: he g’awi ihat APPELLAMTéE 2. Sanjay Vishwas S/o h mm huwm H- wshwas, ager" about 28 yams, Occuwatian C vahu. R1 wiiage 3. Binora, RS. Ch¢£raékarhagaa 3i$irict Raigarh, CQ. Swt Malté Bu who [gamwam‘wam vishwas, ageé , J. 3/ yeg‘ra; Occupaiicn Cattwauci‘; F213 WW4? Bkmm F’S Ehakradlizmagar, Dim" VER$US RE~ 0NBE?‘ Raigarjw ““t") 3a? <3 Cbhcl‘iisgam ‘aug?: F‘oliae Siaiicm Chamadhamagar, ’ 2‘ Fiaga: CG, ahuAsHsiw hm 5m Kamnd a Ag 3R§§£W£x - m3 :oaeg‘ar‘t‘ Pamaé Lawyel mr thv came. $E$TifW Ei'éim 5 ‘SHE {:QEQE CUE me mm:§e“ !eamed trig! Smirk has ‘?n convictmg am} swiwamr the acwaedlameganE as memiw ea‘ absva. '"osacu 1cm m :e* is tart awed S$haiwa $133 He WEe of abwscdlmpav lam No Sawav Vkahwas aw daugktax I” 3f .x 35‘. ’ame!£ 3. She waa maimed ”:0 accugadXEweHam a 33%;?” “a: ’9 ’1 2003 fx’fw Vary the R Ias 1 i” ‘ u Tie appeHamS usai;’ ‘io away ,5 109mm e, : ,1! ncspiia 9r geatwc m nt she died. 1mm EA i ~4) was giver ox, we {:3we Smffgcn House Qmza: PG? se EB’za’iior: . '3gasea Y cm ‘melt, mag V‘, i9 :he Pa a , iaquesL $- REX. 1 ’3 2) WM v :c‘sarw‘ ” d me aeaa mdv ‘ . , ' ’1 \ ar» Y: r. wamm ;( *mrx Agrawai (“W ; VIEW J m a and ‘ywa Vbna snl‘e Led vide Ex. s qua ta 3Q ;na’c§0n pmsence cf med Wde y "*‘a amenta m *he wiresscg anda secacm @W: sf the Coiie o umm’l Pmcealure Mia; recorded and after c;mn§31e’z%m ofé: ‘z uga ‘on d”! g haeiwas "H d n trm e1 : fJudicia Mamst’a‘te F...3.: €3ia$3, Ragmm, M13 ‘n i'um co i mnaiatifon (m'gamphespmmus) used as ingeciicisie was can; i'abort ex‘ P40. Therm a» e ; a € 4. K1 «AuDi’z examkaed as many ass 14 Wimesses. Skateme .t 0f acasgsewa‘sgaeHan‘i‘ss were aise recorded undez‘ $ecz§on 373 01" the 60% Ga” eriai appeai'ing w .1 m . me case 01 “1” Newcuiian and p§ea(ied innoceme and ‘1 ‘Me saSe Tw vswsedfwpaHania nave tgkera T?’e x ey i1 vex haas ed 0' to tu e Bishakha and since sne was ,v rfrom it emm manstma juie Eh y ways Growded raw'crzl 3 Tqev ha 1e w s“ z e Jewarmi Sow! am s aa'a 3am a (I) have stated 'ihai auei éelivew, E$am& ”: :“sevgsr m‘Formed ‘Ehem aboui aw AMWd 0‘ down; Oa' gi‘ueE'Ey by i‘ne acauwc‘z’a Lama They have atso mited evan ar t9 mamage (3f the B€shakha ww’m apgaeilam x c2, e TA}. 53w} da we . .1 matm‘cy re ah 93"“ We ascusgdkggglmnta ‘ aed, ‘i'he mcsecu‘ikm hag )w- h {D L v. f‘uhmina ’h Prwei§w$ m they have denied :‘ne xx! 3 ‘ Sm”: AshiSh Sh;’§\!z§4$tav& Cmmse§ fOr th-a &mmeilani3 arm SM yawN {‘oume1 for Lne lagaandemS :ne am we :sec’ the Raw ha h materi : ls an receid §mk§ding thejiadgmem‘c impugmed. e. w Q) seafameilam? Naz‘ and amusegix’apbe C w E in Eaw a’d fathei’ m iaw. H‘, argued thaw the eecueeu‘feppeiian‘is never subgected Biehekha to cruelty or harassed her fez' e‘WW aw we w e M,;py WW“ ”em. £§§er delivery she devebpee the prCbEem 0'? h‘reguler menetma§ eyez’e 5W3 *he accusedlaweeamte'macie Lmem. ?-e aguod *h * he‘ere he incicem rge’ihing hm time Nae ewer y ‘ted QV t’ae caremv 0f seek e m n0? did they aaE any meeting my eex? w he pi'obkerr h eny, i ed Qrx .ne of? mfg the impugned judgmeni of the we! sew”: is (7r is} 1r (L “i ..3 {D f2. k p “.J Q) r—.« 03' iHe reboomew’ are , E Q15? («3:2 :J e6. “g mm ‘ ra daa mtin sevea years 0‘? he? mam‘iage and ’c’ne. evidence 9“ Iwaea 0" be pmgecuticn 3s s ff. :em i0 my] ve a I? “owixs; “7 11¢ i we 1 used/appeilants wafe subjeciing her i0 smei'fy and harassed T9? dowry saon before the incidem 8. Fm pmvmg the sase of dcww death the presecutisn is requh‘ed m e$iabHsh the fo}%9wing ingredients: {a Deae”$a wac mavr ea to a usedlappe§iamé No.2; E) srxé died a. w‘awm‘ mm wihm 7 yeaIS e' rm: Ha S a teSwt of bum er bodiiy Mun]; and {§i§} saen before the death accusewapgeilants harassed her and demanded dawry. Q. in ardei‘ to esiabhsh the compiicdy of the accused/appeliants in thé crime in qw.—2stiom, éi‘xe mwecudon ha$ adduced wai a$ wa-H as: documentagy evidence. C andmwdma! (PW~3) is the faiha‘ 0f B§shakha me has staied that when h‘g dadgh er came fmm her mati'imonial house afte¥ some days of ihe marriage, she taid that eccesedlabpeimnt No2 demaa’ided neckiace of geld arid while she was gemg ‘eaek, he gave he? ihe same e€ter purchaemg fey Re. 5,50%? Th x e, gel when ehe came o his house} ehe icki him that her inn u is mt 'emughi ehe cauld mi: Eive im her matiimonia houee. Even when she I he}: wee .3 narrated he e e cf eepeHdns ge her neL Once he wee. t ’t. J) I)( l cueediaeeeiiené Ne. rareed ‘i‘e demand far moiereysie aed TV. He ei eeme ta knew abo b me rer‘iureus ahitede of the appeiianis towerde his deeg’m‘ r ’mreL yevmeer sow Barraqr Oh 30 8 4834 the fat? r r: iaw e‘i Biéhakha e ta his house and when he eeked abom ‘ee weii c §ews w 3 raressme he fox magma I V erd ‘no may 3e eed if tee srme 9) 0 was pregnani apbeEants harassed eed tortured e ' . house of he p eeehts am when *r‘ed ‘10 meet hie deughtei', ae se (\ e m if) _§_ ughter, he {:oid tha? She was a§2 right Oz Mg ask d whey WES ciaughée? d§d m? acme; he ism; that $he wouid come some 0%her day. same wir ”1* aaout i Q m we Bbarsf Mme t3 m i irifermed ma’ his daughter was s ovs 1G 15 mmu Yh FagLwm came ‘1'; I 2W ”1 omgc‘ hm mat ifs daughter ha$ beer: iaken ’io hospital at Raigarh. Then ‘mu wife and eida¥ scn wgnt to Raigafh haspEtai where fathef m iaw a? Béshakha toid him that she was beéng treated. Tharezifter, $ome drivar in 15m hogpita§ Eold him ihat hi5 daughtei’ hm bwl take'a tc ihe px aim 11 $1 room ar‘d racoad mg *0 “w dr‘ver the appe§l%ts kiiled her a admms ev‘ng “0 am WMe h? waS gr «a ’ihe paiEce staiim far Ecding thxa reg-(art, we Gaga! Sahu and Fakir Sahu care to him amd thvea’temad him notto reporHhe maéier. .4 4m“). Sm?“ Du¥ari Bai {PW—4) is the mathez' Qf BEshakm. She has 'Ufwrted time sfainmont e1“ Her htiabgm 'xr0"" M Paadhan ’PW—‘Q “as stcied iMi apgcigm§ Linea G ciemami TV and motorcyglg aad Bishakha dééd 1m the RaKShabamhan day, areranm Kumar {P\ ’5) ha$ wbsJar iv wpported ihé versien of Naa’otkam Pradhan (PW—5). Sm Sukh ”9a (P ’Vv’W we fraud Jf .n hak‘na has s€a§ec§ ma: Bi$hakha acid her TLW we am ‘a is Lsed ta clemamj TV amd mc’mrcycie. 3ihaii (PsMJ) Md Smirk; 1 8v an {PW-8) ha‘v’e alw wpported the statawen’” 0f 1’1. Dr. Pawan Kumar Agrawaé (PW—2) who coraducied the poet moriem examinatmn on the body e‘f 1 Eshakhe, has staierj that the cauee of deeéh was aephyym Aceodma to Tr r od‘ of chemca! aw V323 of i =e vishr WeSe )f meleéhEom {oz‘ganephe Dhoroes; useé as nsech xd was eonfirmed. Thus it Es not disputed that Biehekhe died en Lmmm‘aT deg: x suit or posenmg i &mk a e' f‘ {QA x t 412. ;L {a Das (PW 1) na * mart '1 h:$ crass examm am ’z‘m‘t we yea? after the marr§age cf Bishakha, her faihe‘r haa‘ mid Mm abmzt the demand bemg a‘ai$eci by the agpenan’ia. Chandra$hakha§' (WW3) has m1 Led ‘n pkgrawr oh 6 w” Ms crows examma’rlon mw‘ i the t'Eme o? rwnage, u w appel! .5 had rot dewandea dowry w+owavn¥ m3 aemed :he wcL % L Eiwe apgeliaate» weye havisag TV am! moéorcyde even prior i5 mamaae cf B:s"§:1‘"ae H o damcd the suggeghm ha’r 2k “fie “me af WM] Enqak a wa$ ii} and W31$ under weatment 0f irregukar memstma§ in @Ewagraph 9 0f mass examinat'aon thég Wiiness admitted we? on sormng .0 “raw hé {iemanu Qf cm“ i bx! “he qweLwm he did nc odge a‘T-j' reigm'i' agaém’i them He has denied the wggwtim tnar he ciid hrf "m ihe neEk 4c Whan mmfwr‘taa Mu fwe I: m“ 3‘1;a'i%mem EX. Q4 he haS mt gtated “e amim- demarid of dawm ; Swi Dmari Ea‘ai {Pwué} has admii‘ted En her c2'0$3 examina‘téo‘a Ex‘ 13-2 recerded in, the P013ce am $ia€ec§ that she staied "m She {mice regarding né af dmm‘, ‘wut ‘n same w m? lecozcmd In hey skatamen‘i EX. 3—2. 3rd: Sukhm‘a’:§ {PW~6} mend sf Bishakha has admiited in ha“ cross that whew Bishakha came toher Vmage ‘m 1:; e bsagimmg rainy Seasani she talc! her ghai ma afp {irate we“ C‘errvardmg TV amd mc‘tmcyda Bhikhari {PWJ) has aése admitted that the poiice reswded hi3 Statement but he demad the §act that he talc! the po§i5e :hai his sistea' as *eam and he did nc’r know How s‘w med He has epeci§§cai§y mated ii’r‘i he harmed fine emh'e stew "ta the police that the apeenems eet"r:a31ded ciawly Efrem h§3 sisiez‘ Evxeenne m CT‘a'r'dfw enemar \F‘W 3) Dulari Ba§ (PW—4 and Bhikhaé'i {F’W-? Le. father, mother and brether a? deceaseci 3hishakha came? Le dischayged oh ihe giom‘zd ihat iihey aa'e cieaeéy 3'e1as‘ed 1:9 ha am} are 'mkez’ested 'm pi’osecmting the appeuants ‘ exa‘mma WHAH.A V¥ /# pmvidé ‘1 g A c a 1 i7~ Em the EWSta’mt case Bishakha déed on the day of Rakhi :‘es‘tiva3 Md $he was not permitied to visit her parents’ muse to caebmte Rakhé. Bu? appei!am kganmat‘zhuram himseif werxi L ithe house of the barems 0f he .9 ckzeased and he Teid the fa'tiwer 0f the denea3ed ma? Eishakha would come Some ather day. i4. This is e. case of dowry death and the accused/appellehts are husbamj End in—1aws 0" éhe deceased. Nwmaiw, bmther, fathei' am”; mother of ihe decea$ed do raot always make; mmrt reia‘t5ng t0 the haraasment 9r iortoure matted te her by the accused persens er take actim against them m ihe hepe “‘3a‘ some day the situation may §mprove am! imir :iaug‘nte‘r wougd Qead free life m her matrimonia! heme. Bu’i it gamer be said that the mother, father and brothey of ihe deceased have falseiy hweheaied 'the accused persons in ihe grime in cguestien w§th a vEeW to 'iean‘n them §essen. én we case the death the prasewtion is i'eqijikd to adduse éhe cogent and reiiabb evidence to esfabheh the feet that the husbehd or relatives 0f the husbahrj of the deeeased have estuatty demanded dowry and in comeetion with the same they tortut'ed J. :ahcl subjeeted he? te emetty. 1h the absence of any eahstentie! evidence at demand of dewry, havaesment 0r torture metted out to the deceased by the aeeueedfapheitehts the convition and sentehce against the appeiia‘nts fer the effence nunishebte with section 304-8 ofthe ihdian Pehei Cede is net sustainable. 15. Reliance is piaeed or; the decision of the Apex Cew‘ in the mattei' 1 of Hariit sinah v. State ea‘ Puhteh in which it has heen heid that the ihgredients of sections 364% and 306 of the lhdiah Penal Code ate different and t0 ounish the amused for cruelty of special character ie. cruelty in sonhea‘t on with demand ct dowry is required to be estabizshed. r. xx ,g _- 9/9 Futi" ehanve nu p ”wed on the diwsmn u' “me Maev Cow; m h ma‘i‘ger sf HiraEai ami ai§§ay$ v. $1aie {fimemmam W EL g Eam 2 in wnia: ;.. g, i; L has heen he c1 that there mus‘n be existemse 0f a proximate and We iink bew‘iéei‘: ihe effeci o: crueitv based on dawn! deL. Ad m rhe death camemed and if ihe aileged E5" idem 0f crueity is ¥emoie in time and has became siale emaugh hoé ta Q‘lswb mentai equiiibrium of he woman aomcemed, wouEd be of m) cansequence and in €he ab$eme a?“ any warge under seem“ 306 of the 1P f e accused/aooaiam way 0 meié guiity. Further re§iance is waned en i’ne deciSion on 4-Lhe Apex f f‘ waurk in the mafier of gamw: 31" ”a y s“ a3§&s Krm a La Pa; rm v $taze m“ 8m in whith ii haS been heid i i £ customay darra d at éhe ‘c‘; e o, b1: h o chiid as pre iem‘. m the sociew is noi coveieci bv down! :u: he? rcilame is piaced or; the ziecismn of the Apex Court m the mafier of Kaiivaperumai and another v. $taie of ‘i‘amiinaou 4 in which it has beer} heid that prosecution is required io Show that demand was mao‘e soon before her deaih but ihe're Eamot be a $i1iaighic-3‘aoket forumuia ao to whai wouid constitute “soon before death”. it ha$ to be determined b he Court deroendmg uoon the ta ts awd Circumstances oi each case 16. in the instant case deceased Bishakha died Within ’14 monthe of her marriage. Chandrashekhar (PW-3). the father of the deceased has stated in hi5 evidehce that he provided neckiace worth Rs. 5500/—. He aiso stated that acoused Senjay Vishwas demanded TV and motoroyeie through his deLrghtei‘. However, it does not find place d the peiice statement Ex. D-1. Facts regarding demand cf dowry is also missing in police statement Ex. D—2 made by Duiari Bai, mother of the deseesedi Potioe also recorded statement of the brother of the deeeased under section 15‘! oithe Code of Criminat Prooedure vide Ex. [3—4. 2 {200w 8 SCC so 3 E20053 2 SCC 388 4 (2004, 9 SCC 157 f? ._ £6 1?. m the case cf damestic vioience or haras$meni narma§$y km affecied person Le. daughter-3n-!aw does mi repark 02' in?m'm anycne about the haras$ment or toi'turcus attituda of her husband or NEWS it) other persons but as am! when she gets the Qpportum‘iy, she infems about it ta her pas’ents. The pafenée of the bride normaHy do not ream e mmediaiew but wait f0? an opportune time, in the hope of amicable seitiement between ‘che pai’iies and to avoid furthe? oompiicatione Whioh may arise in fuiure. But when the matter becemes inteierabie thee the daughtet—in—taw or the affected tady diseioses the torturous attitude 0t her husband and intaws, to the poiice, neighbour and ether pereem {elated t0 her to get the dispute reeotved with their interventieh. t8. 3h the instaht caee father in iew of the deceased did riot permit het to go to her parents” house to eeiebrate Rakhi testivai and on the eeme day she consumed the poison i.e. maiathion (organophoepheroue) eh thsecttcide and died in the house of the appettentsr The appettents have not dieciosed how she consumed poteon. They have only etated that she was tinder treatment and tried to show that she died because of her tit heattht Retatives of the deceased i.e. mother‘ fethet and brether have net todged any report against the demand of dowry tatsed by the accusediappetiants before the death of the deceased“ From the merg intimation Ex. P-8 it appears that after consuming poison she was taken to hospitai Where she died. Chandra Shekhar (PW-3 , Dulari Bat (WV-4 and Ethikhart (PWJ) §.e. father, mother and brother of deeeased Bhishakha have not offered any explanation as to why they did not teit the pottoe at the first tnstanoe and it is after a lapse of 2 years they same with ,c~ i the eiiegation of demand of dowry and harassment metted to deceased the appeiiants. Aithrough this is a ease of death of bride Within 14 months of marriage, yet the oroseeution is required to estebiish the ease beyond reasonabie doubt. Untess the prosecution is ebte to show that soon .‘A/aw beisre death, the rianeaSe iQ was swjécz‘éé to cma??y §n mnmction wi’ah demand of dowry, oniy enly i’ne ground of commissfan of suiche by he? wii’hin the Seven years of marriage pmsumption Cannot be dzawn that the appeilams had abe’ded or inStigated her for ¢ommifing sumide‘ m the absence of clinching and mmbie ev§denoe fegarding tho harossment or ”torture metied to the deceased m oomneciion with demand of dowry by tho apoeHants soon before doath, convitéon of éhe appe§3ants f0? ihe of§ence under section 3843/34 of the indian Pena! Code is not 1Q. sustamabie in law. 2S. Leomed Mai Court has not appreciated iho evidence avai!ab§o so .veoord adduced by the prosecutioa regarding domaod of dowy and harassment b the a' IDolranta and; arrived at a wron'“a oonctueion by convicting and sentenctng the accusedfeppeHamts as mentiomed above. 2t. Corteequentiy, the appea! ie aitowed. trnpugrred judgmem is set aside. rkppetiants are aoquitted of the Aocusedreppettant Sanjay is stated to be in ' torthwrth . rf - not requrred . um any other case. r V Sd/_x r T. P. Sharma Judge ‘ *5: charge teveEed agairrst them.