Injury marks are indicative of dowry death.
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
Guilty of dowry death based on circumstantial evidence
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.
Four ingredients are necessary for convicting the accused for an offence punishable
under Section 304B IPC, the following pre-requisites must be met:
(i) that the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or
occured otherwise than under normal circumstance;
(ii) that such a death must have occurred within a period of seven years of her
marriage;
(iii) that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands
of her husband, soon before her death; and
(iv) that such a cruelty or harassment must have been for or related to any demand
for dowry.
Divorce on the basis of irretrievable breakdown of marriage
The Supreme court of india held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage should be treated as mutual cruelty between husband and wife and thus a ground for divorce u/s 13(1) on the basis of cruelty.
The case discusses the dissolution of marriage in cases where husband and wife have been living separately for a considerable period and there is no chance of reconciliation. The Supreme Court of India, in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown as a ground, which otherwise does not exist under the Hindu Marriage Act in three cited cases. In Naveen Kohli, the Court made a strong recommendation to the Union of India to consider adding irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court considered the entire matrimonial relationship, and in determining cruelty, considered the nature of the relationship, the general behavior of the parties towards each other, or long separation between the two. The Court found that the continuation of the marriage would mean continuation of cruelty inflicted by each other, and therefore dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
In this legal case, the husband and wife have been living separately for a significant period, with no chance of reconciling. The court has dissolved the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, a ground not officially recognized under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court has also recommended that the Union of India consider adding irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce under the act. The court has determined that in matrimonial cases, the entire relationship must be examined to determine cruelty, and not just violent acts. In this particular case, the court has concluded that the continuation of the marriage would mean the continuation of cruelty, which each party inflicts on the other. Despite the fact that irretrievable breakdown is not a legal ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the court has dissolved the marriage by decree of cruelty.
SHRI RAKESH RAMAN … APPELLANT
Versus
SMT. KAVITA …RESPONDENT decided by the Supreme Court of India on 26.04.23