No Bar With Regard To Framing Of Additional Charge U/S 302 IPC In Dowry Death Case: Allahabad HC

The Court was hearing an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed seeking quashing of the order in Session Trial for the commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 302 of the IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed, “Having clear and categorical intention to kill the deceased for non fulfilment of demand of dowry, therefore, all the conditions of Section 304B I.P.C. are fulfilled in the instant case, which goes to the extent of intentionally killing the deceased thereby attracts provisions of Section 302 I.P.C. as well…though the additional charge Section 302 I.P.C. can be framed, but a person cannot be convicted for both the offences i.e., u/S 304B I.P.C. and also u/S 302 I.P.C., however, there is no bar with regard to framing of additional charge u/S 302 I.P.C.”

Advocate Amit Daga appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Yogendra Pal Singh appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

In this case, an FIR was filed by the brother of the deceased alleging that his sister was married to the applicant and the family spent Rs. 9L on the wedding. After the marriage, the applicant and his family allegedly began harassing and assaulting his sister demanding an additional Rs. 2L. After a few months of marriage a video showing his sister unconscious due to torture was sent to him. Upon reaching her in-laws' house, he found her injured and unconscious. The Applicant's family allegedly threatened further harm if their financial demands were not met. She was then admitted to Hospital in a serious condition. An FIR was lodged based on these claims. She died in hospital during treatment.

The Court said that the cause of death of the deceased was cruelty and harassment committed by the applicant for the demand of dowry before six months of marriage. Therefore, according to the Court the death of the deceased could not be said to be a natural death and by all means it is an unnatural death caused within six months of marriage, therefore, all the ingredients of Sections 304B, 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act, are attracted against the applicant, for which he has been rightly charge-sheeted by the trial Court and the trial Court has further rightly rejected the application for discharge moved by the Applicant.

The Court mentioned the decision in Baljeet Singh v. State of Haryana: (2004) and quoted, “there should be death of a woman otherwise than in normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage and the prosecution having shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry by persons accused of having committed the offence. Unless and until these preliminary facts are established by the prosecution, it is not open to the courts to draw a presumption against the accused invoking Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.”

The Court further mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) and quoted, “A legal fiction has been created in the said provision to the effect that in the event it is established that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relatives; for or in connection with any demand of dowry, such death shall be called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.”

The Court did not find any illegality in the rejection of the discharge application as well as in the charges framed by the trial Court.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Application.

Cause Title: Mayank Gautam v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:155740)

Click here to read/download Judgment