State v. Suraj Mehto & Ors.

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be Yes allowed to see the Order?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the Order should be reported Yes in the Digest?

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT, (OPEN COURT)

1. This judgment will dispose of the petition for leave to appeal preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 30.04.2010 of learned Addl. Session Judge in SC No.137/2007. By the impugned judgment the Trial Court acquitted the Respondents, Suraj Mehto and Dhanwanti of the charges for having committed offences under Sections 498A/ 304B/ 34 IPC.

2. The prosecution had alleged that the Respondents were guilty of having 2011:DHC:4000-DB committed offences under Sections 498A/ 304B/ 34 IPC. The marriage between Suraj Mehto and Promila (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟) took place in April, 2005 at Mosnpur, District Chapra, Bihar. The prosecution alleged that at the time of marriage the accused/ Respondents had demanded a total amount of ` 50,000/-, which was paid to them. It was alleged that a further demand of ` 1,00,000/- was made to purchase a motorcycle. The deceased‟s mother (Deep Jhari, PW-7) and her son (Sanjay Kumar, PW-5) were unable to pay the entire amount but had paid ` 80,000/- approximately six months after the marriage. The deceased died on 16.06.2007; it was a case of burning. She was taken to LNJP Hospital and declared dead. The deceased‟s relatives statements were recorded during the investigation; the statements were recorded by the concerned SDM (PW-15) and the same were produced as Ex.PW-15/G. Based on the materials, collected during the investigation, the accused were charged for committing the offence under Sections 498A/ 304B/ 34 IPC. They entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses including the relatives of the deceased and after considering all these materials, the Trial Court was of the opinion that the prosecution could not establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted them vide judgment dated 30.04.2010.

3. Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that the Trial Court fell into error in not considering the statements of the witnesses who were categorical that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty soon before her death. It was submitted that the Trial Court misread Section 304B and concluded erroneously that the cruelty and harassment for the sake of dowry had not taken place soon before her death on 16.06.2007. The learned counsel submits that demands of dowry made at the time of marriage as well as thereafter; the cruelty meted to the deceased during the subsistence of her marriage, which included harassment before her death i.e. 16.06.2007 and unnatural death within 7 years of solemnization of her marriage, all of these qualify for the operation of presumption under Section 131B of Indian Evidence Act. It was submitted that the Trial Court fell into error in not appreciating this and concluded that the accused were not guilty.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions and the Trial Court record, requisitioned for the purpose of these proceedings. PW-5 Sanjay Kumar (deceased‟s brother) deposed that two demands for dowry were made at the time of marriage i.e. ` 20,000/- and ` 30,000/-, which were fulfilled at the relevant time i.e. April, 2005. The next demand was made about 6 months later by the accused for purchasing a motorcycle; this witness as well as PW-7 (deceased‟s mother) deposed that ` 1,00,000/- was demanded, however, they could not give the amount; PW-5 had to prematurely encash a chit fund (committee) money, which led to accused being paid ` 80,000/- sometime in October, 2005. PW-5 and PW-7 are consistent upto this point. After this there is variance; PW-5 is silent whether any cruelty was meted out during the subsistence of the marriage at all. PW-7 (deceased‟s mother) deposed that the deceased daughter was harassed by the accused and his family members for not fulfilling the dowry demands. She deposed that even 2 months before her death i.e. 16.06.2007 the deceased told her about the harassment suffered by her.

5. The Trial Court considered the ingredients of Section 304B and analyzed them in its impugned judgment. It also considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Hira Lal and Others v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80 to underline that there is no set time limit while interpreting the expression “soon before her death” occurring in Section 304B. The Court correctly interpreted the expression and gauged from the totality of circumstances in every given case. After analyzing the provisions of law, noting the testimonies and the relevant material witnesses, the court went on the impugned judgment and observed as follows: -

6. We may add here that the prosecution story was that PW-5 (the son of PW-7, Deep Jhari) used to live in a joint family with her. Significantly, he did not depose about the dowry harassment at all or particularly dowry harassment any time before the death or the incident of 16.06.2007. Furthermore, PW-7 the mother did not mention or specify kind of harassment meted to the deceased. These two aspects assume considerable importance in this case because in order to attract the presumption under Section 113B the prosecution has to prove the bare foundational facts. This would include the acts of harassment – even though specific dates cannot possibly be mentioned by the witnesses at least by approximation they can be accounted for. More importantly, the prosecution has to be specific as to what kind of harassment it was, mental or physical; what was the act of cruelty in a given case has to be proved. In the present case no such specific act was alleged or proved.