Section 482 crpc, Sec304 B IPC

The High Court concurred with the findings of the trial court and held all three accused guilty of dowry death based on circumstantial evidence that linked the death of Fulwa Devi to dowry demands and harassment by the accused. The deceased Fulwa Devi had gone missing from her matrimonial home and her decomposed body was later found in the river. The court rejected the accused’s defence and held that the circumstantial evidence, including the failure to explain her disappearance, implicated the accused in the crime. The court explained that four pre-requisites must be met to convict the accused for an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC, which is related to dowry death. The court also referred to Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides a presumption relating to dowry death.

“From a perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent
and the final report filed by the police under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.,
We are of the view that the aforesaid judgment fully supports the case
of the appellants. Even in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of
respondent nos.1 and 2, it is not disputed that the 1st appellant was working
in ICICI Bank at Khalilabad branch, but merely stated that there was a
possibility to reach Gorakhpur by 8 p.m. Though there is an allegation of
causing injuries, there are no other external injuries noticed in the
postmortem certificate, except the single ante-mortem injury i.e. ligature
mark around the neck, and the cause of death is shown as asphyxia.
Having regard to the case of the appellants and the material placed on
record, we are of the considered view that except vague and bald
allegations against the appellants, there are no specific allegations
disclosing the involvement of the appellants to prosecute them for the
offences alleged. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Geeta Mehrotra and Anr.1 , which squarely applies to the case of the
appellants, we are of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings.”

MIRZA IQBAL @ GOLU & ANR.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2021)
DECEMBER 14, 2021

By aor.sanjivnarang@gmail.com

Sanjiv Narang Adv. is an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court of India. His qualifications include an LLB from University of Delhi and a Masters degree in Personnel Management from Panjab University,Chandigarh.In his more than 3 decades of experience, he has practiced law at the District, High Court and Supreme Court levels.He also has more than a decade of experience in the field of Management. He is the author of two books namely Laws for Women in India and Innovation, Why What and How.