Asha & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand

2. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the correctness of the findings recorded by both the trial court and the High Court on the charges framed against the accused persons under Sections 302/34, 304B and 306 of the IPC and also to find out as to whether the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed by them.

3. The deceased, Bhagwati Devi was married to Satish Chandra (the brother of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1893 of 2013) on 13.06.1991. The deceased died due to burn injuries in her matrimonial house on 18.07.1993, around two years after marriage. The co-accused, the father- in-law of the deceased, Nitya Nand (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1894 of 2013) lodged a report (Ex.Ka.1) on 18.07.1993 with the patwari stating that his daughter-in-law committed suicide by burning herself at about 10.00 a.m. He alleged in the aforesaid report that the deceased burnt herself to death while he had gone to the market and his wife and their daughters were away in the jungle for cutting grass. On 19.07.1993, the complainant, Mahesh Chandra (P.W. 5), the brother of the deceased lodged another report to the patwari making allegations against the appellants herein and the mother-in-law of the deceased, upon which FIR No.1/93 dated 19.07.1993 was registered against them. The accused persons were arrested and sent to judicial custody on 22.07.1993. On 16.10.1993, the police, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora. The case was committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge on 23.03.1994 and the accused were charged under Sections 302/34 and 304B of the IPC and in the alternative, Section 306 of the IPC. Both the prosecution and the defence witnesses were examined to prove the charges against the accused persons and to show that they are not guilty of the offences alleged against them. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence on record, vide its judgment and order dated 01.06.1998, found the appellants guilty of offence under Section 304B of the IPC and they were sentenced to 10 years R.I. The appellants were acquitted for offences under Sections 302 and 306 of the IPC. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 1931/2001 (Old no.1060/1998) before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of the Sessions Court vide its common judgment and order dated 07.01.2011. Aggrieved by the same they preferred these appeals, urging certain grounds and legal contentions.

4. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to convict the appellants. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of the case. P.W 3, Bhuvan Chandra and P.W 5, Mahesh Chandra are the brothers of the deceased. According to P.W. 3, his brother Deepak Chandra-the P.W.7 had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased, when the four accused persons demanded [pic]30,000/- stating that the deceased had brought less dowry and threatened to send her back to their house if they did not pay the amount demanded. P.W.3 had written a letter (Ex. Ka.3) on 28.6.1993 to his parents informing them about the demand of the in-laws of the deceased for [pic]30,000/- and that due to this he withdrew [pic]4,000/- and sent it to his father through a villager to give it to his sister, the deceased herein. He also stated that the deceased-Bhagwati had told his wife and his father that she was being harassed at her in-laws house because she had brought less dowry. P.W.4, Nanda Devi, the mother of the deceased also alleged that the deceased was harassed by the accused persons for bringing less dowry. She deposed that the accused persons gave her less food and did not allow her to wear the clothes which were given to her at the time of the marriage. P.W.5, the brother of the deceased deposed that his sister had told him that her in- laws taunted her about being from a poor family and for having brought less dowry. P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 alleged that the accused burnt Bhagwati to death. P.W.6, Dr. Naval Kishore Pandey, the doctor who conducted the post mortem of the deceased deposed before the trial court that she had died due to 90% of burn injuries. P.W.7, Deepak Chandra, another brother of the deceased deposed before the court that he had gone to his sister’s matrimonial house in May, 1993 when the accused persons demanded [pic]30,000/- and said that dowry was not fulfilled by the parents of the deceased and they had simply given a sewing machine. He also stated that the accused persons had misbehaved with his sister Bhagwati in his presence.

12. In our considered view, after careful analysis of the aforesaid aspects of the case and on careful perusal of the evidence on record, the finding of fact recorded by the High Court in convicting the accused for the charge of Section 304B of the IPC is not only erroneous in fact but also suffers from error in law and therefore, the present appeals must succeed.

13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, i.e. the lack of compelling evidence, we have to reverse the judgment and order of the High Court by setting aside the conviction of the accused persons under Section 304B of the IPC. The impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.

14. The appeals are allowed accordingly.