Case Title:
Kans Raj vs State of Punjab & Ors.
Date Of Order:
26 April, 2000
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Mr. R.P. Sethi, Mr. Shivaraj V. Patil.
Parties:
Petitioner: Kans Raj
Respondent: State of Punjab & Ors.
SUBJECT
This Criminal appeal filed by the appellant in order to challenge the orders of the acquittal of the respondents passed by the High Court of Punjab.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- Section 3
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 173
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 306
- Section 302
- Section 304B
- Section 498A
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 113B
- Section 32(1)-(8)
- Section 32
- Section 114
- Section113A
BRIEF FACTS
- In this case, Ram Kishan, Sunita Kumari's brother, found her body while bringing her the traditional Karva Chauth gifts. Before calling the police, he saw the ligature marks and told his parents about the tragedy. A case was filed against the deceased's husband, Rakesh Kumar, and her mother-in-law, Ram Piari, based on Ram Kishan's testimony and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). She afterwards had her sister-in-law Bharti and brother-in-law Ramesh Kumar appear in court as defendants.
- The paragraph further states that the father of the deceased filed a separate complaint against each respondent in accordance with Sections 302 and 304B of the IPC. Additional Sessions Judge found the respondents guilty. The respondents received a 10-year severe prison term after being found guilty of violating Section 304B (dowry death). Additionally, they were found guilty of violating IPC Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) and Section 306 (abetting suicide).
- The father of the deceased filed a revision petition asking for an increase in the sentence, while the respondents appealed the convictions in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition and cleared the respondents and passed the orders of acquittal.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the dismissal of the revision appeal filed by the appellant to challenge the order of acquittal of the respondents passed by the High Court of Punjab is valid or not ?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the appellant, argued that the High Court's decision in this case was legally flawed and should be overturned. She argued that the prosecution's evidence, which purportedly established the respondents' guilt in the horrific crime of dowry death, was improperly examined by the High Court.
- According to the Learned Counsel, In dowry death instances when the death occurs within seven years of marriage and harassment due to dowry demand is established, She cited Section 113B of the Evidence Act, which creates a legal presumption of guilt against the accused.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- On the other hand, The Learned Senior Advocate representing the respondents, countered that there was no concrete proof of the cause of death or the events that led to it. He argued that none of the respondents could be found guilty of the crimes they were accused of because there was no dowry demand prior to the alleged incident.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Apex court observed that although the sums of dowry asked by the accused that were described by several witnesses varied, these changes were not substantial enough to be viewed as inconsistent. Some sums that one witness indicated but another witness did not disclose were viewed as omissions rather than significant contradictions. The court emphasized that there were no intervening circumstances indicating a resolution or settlement of the dowry demands, and that the harassment and demand for dowry persisted up until just before the deceased's death.
- The Apex court expressed its disapproval of the High Court's decision to exonerate the accused based on small errors and omissions, given the gravity of the act. The Supreme Court granted the appeal in part, reversing the other accused's conviction while upholding the deceased woman's husband's acquittal.
- The husband was found guilty of dowry death under Section 304B, but the punishment was lowered to seven years in a hard labour camp. The sentence was lowered to five years in prison even though his Section 306 conviction (abetting suicide) was affirmed. In addition, he received a two-year harsh prison term and a fine after being found guilty of violating Section 498A (cruelty by a spouse or other family). It was decided to run the sentences simultaneously. The husband's bail bonds were revoked by the Supreme Court, who also ordered him to turn himself in to complete the shorter sentences.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India found that the accused husband was responsible for the dowry death and assisted suicide after carefully examining the evidence. The Supreme Court maintained the husband's conviction and shortened his sentence after the court criticized the High Court for clearing the accused based on inconsequential errors and omissions. The court's ruling emphasizes the gravity of dowry-related offences and conveys the message that they would be severely punished.
