Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 409 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Manoj Kumar

2015-08-26

ALOK SINGH, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. 1. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.6.2010 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2007, whereby the accused/respondents were acquitted from the charges levelled u/s. 304-B r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. In nutshell, the prosecution story is that on 1.5.2007, PW1 Prakash lodged an FIR at P.S. Roorkee (Haridwar) stating therein that his daughter Anju Devi (deceased) was got married with accused Manoj Kumar; at the time of marriage, Rs.20,000/- in cash, clothes and jewellery were given; soon after the marriage, husband Manoj Kumar, father in law Tejpal and mother in law Smt. Saroj started treating Anju Devi with cruelty on account of bringing less dowry; accused were requested not to treat Anju Devi with cruelty, however, in futile; about four months before the incident, Anju Devi was brought to her parental house by Manoj Kumar; accused persons had assured that in future, Anju Devi would not be treated with cruelty since she was pregnant; on such assurance, Anju Devi was allowed to go to her matrimonial house; on 26.4.2007, PW1 was informed telephonically that accused have killed his daughter Anju Devi; on the report of PW1, FIR bearing case Crime No. 124 of 2007 was registered u/s. 304-B IPC against the accused persons. 3. Post-mortem on the dead body of Anju Devi was conducted on 27.4.2007 by PW4 Dr. Ajay Mohan Agarwal. As per the post-mortem report, no external injury was found on the body of Anju Devi and cause of death could not be ascertained. Therefore, viscera was preserved and sent for examination to the forensic laboratory. 4. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 Prakash, PW2 Rakesh Kumar, PW3 Sahid Hussain, PW4 Dr. Ajay Mohan Agarwal, PW5 Constable Sushma Rana, PW6 Mukesh Kumar, PW7 Navneet Singh and PW8 Constable Chetan Singh were examined. 5. Thereafter, the statements of the accused/respondents were recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. In defence evidence, DW1 Hari Ram and DW2 Saeed Hasan were examined. 6. Learned Trial Court, having considered the entire material available on record, was pleased to acquit the accused/respondents. Feeling aggrieved, present appeal has been preferred by the State Government. 7. We have heard Mr. A.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Ms. Farida Siddiqui, learned Brief Holder for the State/appellant and Mr. 6. Learned Trial Court, having considered the entire material available on record, was pleased to acquit the accused/respondents. Feeling aggrieved, present appeal has been preferred by the State Government. 7. We have heard Mr. A.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Ms. Farida Siddiqui, learned Brief Holder for the State/appellant and Mr. R.C. Tamta, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/ respondents and have carefully perused the record as well. 8. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: “304B. Dowry death.— (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death” and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” 9. The language of Section 304-B IPC is unambiguous, plain and simple. For the offence punishable u/s. 304-B IPC, death of a woman should be caused by any burns or bodily injury or should occur otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and she should be subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. 10. Now, let us examine as to whether the death of Anju Devi was on account of any burn or bodily injuries or it had occurred other than normal circumstances for the action/omission on the part of accused persons. 11. PW4 Dr. Ajay Mohan Agarwal who has conducted the post-mortem, while appearing in the witness box, has stated that during post-mortem examination, he observed that Anju Devi was suffering from intestinal ulcer; there was blast in the ulcer in her intestine and due to such blast, there was excessive bleeding noticed in the intestine and as a result thereof, death could occur. 12. 12. Since, as per the information of the doctor, the main cause of death could be the blast of intestinal ulcer and no bodily injury was observed by the doctor during post- mortem examination, therefore, we find that the case, in hand, does not fall within the four corners of Section 304-B IPC. 13. As far as the statements of PW1 Prakash, PW2 Rakesh Kumar and PW3 Sahid Hussain are concerned, we find that they never saw the accused persons causing any injury to Anju Devi. 14. That apart, the tendency of people feeling free to rope the husband and his relatives in untimely death of wife also cannot be ruled out completely. 15. For the reasons, as discussed hereinbefore, we do not find any justification or cogent ground to take a contrary view than what was taken by learned Trial Judge. 16. The appeal preferred by the State fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.