Date of judgement:
17th December 2021
Bench:
Justice Hima Kohli
Parties:
Appellant – Parvati Devi
Respondent – State of Bihar Now State of Jharkhand
Subject
The petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for setting aside the order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand. The Court allowed the appeal of the petitioner.
Legal Provisions
- Section 304B IPC- About dowry death
- Section 201 IPC- giving false information or disappearance of evidence.
- Section 34 IPC- act done by many persons with common intention
- Section 204 IPC- destruction of document
- Section 113 B of Evidence Act- Presumption of dowry death.
Overview
- Bodhi Mahto, the informant, got her daughter, Fulwa Devi married to Ram Sahay (appellant no. 1) in the year 1997.
- After a few months, Parvati Devi (appellant no.3 and mother-in-law of Fulwa) and NemaMahto(father-in-law of Fulwa) started harassing her in order to get Rs 20000 and a motorcycle. Once she expressed the inability of her parents to provide the demanded material, she was assaulted brutally and threatened that her husband would be married to some other girl.
- Subsequently, Fulwa went missing from the matrimonial home and on 13th August, 1997, Bodhi Mahto lodged a complaint under section 204/201/34 IPC. A chargesheet was filed against the three accused for the offences under the aforesaid sections along with section 4 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Five days after filing of FIR, a skeleton was found on the banks of river Brakar from a distance of one km from Village Sirmadih and it was assumed to be of Fulwa Devi. Thereafter, accused persons were charged under section 304B/34 and 201/34 IPC.
- On September 20,1999, the accused were sentenced under section 302B and 201 read with section 34 IPC by the Trial Court. Moreover, Nemo Mahto was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years as well as three years with both sentences running concurrently.
- The accused approached the High Court of Jharkhand for setting aside this order.
- Judgment by High Court-
- On 1st May 2007, the High Court upheld the order passed by the Trial Court as the accused failed to prove how the deceased vanished from her matrimonial home. The Court also rejected the defense made by the accused that she did not live with her husband and in-laws but instead was residing with her brother-in-law.The statement by the accused that the body was recovered from the banks of river Bara was also rejected by the Court.
- The accused persons were also held for not putting any effort in searching for the deceased after she went missing. Also, the brother of the deceased stated that after the occurrence of crime, all the accused were absconding. This was a critical situation which was held against them.
- Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the accused approached Hon’ble Supreme Court.
- Issue
- Whether the accused could be held liable under section 304B and 201 read with 34 IPC.
- Whether the decisions given by Trial Court and High Court were correct.
- Judgment Analysis
- It was held that the current facts completely satisfied the conditions for the accused to be punished under section 304B. As Fulwa went missing from her matrimonial home after few months of marriage and when she was harassed for providing dowry, she had an abnormal death. Such a death is characterized as a “dowry death”.
- The Court did not interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The husband was held liable for forcing her to give dowry after which she died, as there was enough evidence to support this. Hence, the appeal filed by him was dismissed. He was directed to surrender within four weeks before the Trial Court to complete the remaining period of punishment.
- However, the appeal by the mother-in-law of Fulwa was allowed as there were only some allegations against her for demanding dowry. As a result, she was released.
Conclusion
In India, more than 8,000 women die every year because of the dowry system. Sometimes women commit suicide because of the pressure and sometimes they are killed by the husband or in-laws. Dowries are widespread and oppressive. Although the law expressly prohibits dowries, it is not enforced.
The decision held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case is justifiable.
The bench observed that when we read section 304 B of IPC with section 113B of the Evidence Act, and the prosecution submits enough evidence to prove that the death occurred within a few days of the deceased being forced to providea dowry, there can be no doubt thatit is a “dowry death”. However, this can be changed if the accused provides sufficient evidence that the facts do not satisfy every condition of section 304B IPC.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
