Can’t Doubt Place Of Occurrence Where It’s Clear Cut That Death Occurred At Accused’s House: Patna High Court Upholds Conviction In Dowry Death Case
The Patna High Court emphasised that it is the duty of the accused to explain the incriminating circumstance fixed against him while making the statement under Section 313 of CrPC.
Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has upheld the conviction of a man in dowry death case, saying that the place of occurrence cannot be doubted where it is clear cut that the death occurred at the accused’s house.
A Criminal Appeal was preferred before the Court, challenging the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey observed, “The above two cited decisions by learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same cannot be taken into account as if second Investigating Officer has been examined and place of occurrence is otherwise proved by all the witnesses and there is no reason to doubt the place of occurrence where it is clear cut that the death has occurred at the house of appellant and in several cases, wherein even Investigating Officer has not been examined, prosecution case cannot be thrown out.”
The Bench emphasised that it is the duty of the accused to explain the incriminating circumstance fixed against him while making the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
Advocate Nafisu Zzoha appeared for the Appellant/Accused, while APP Mukeshwar Dayal appeared for the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
As per the prosecution case, the marriage of the informant’s daughter (deceased) was solemnized with the Appellant-accused in 2014. The accused and deceased were blessed with a daughter and allegedly, after six months of marriage, the accused and others demanded dowry of motorcycle and Rs. 2,50,000/- and tortured the deceased in various ways. The informant purchased a motorcycle and gifted to the accused (his son-in-law) and again after some days, the accused and others allegedly assaulted and tortured the deceased. They allegedly demanded Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash for casting the roof and to visit abroad to which informant’s daughter resisted. It was further alleged that in 2018, the accused had to go abroad for which the informant took loan of Rs. 1 lakh and gave to him.
It was also alleged that it was informed to the informant that her daughter was killed. On the said information, informant along with his son, wife, and others reached the deceased’s house and saw her dead body lying on a cot and all the family members of in-laws of deceased were absconded from there. Allegedly, a white coloured soaked and smeared pillow was found from the adjacent room of informant’s daughter. Resultantly, a case was registered. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Being aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “There is irresistible presumption that she was being murdered within five years of marriage and the said fact was supported by informant and other relative witness.”
The Court remarked that keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for the circumstance is additional link in chain of circumstance to sustain the charge against the accused and in this way, finding of the Trial Court is not in any way derogation of settled principle of law.
“In the light of the aforesaid fact, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is neither tenable nor sustainable in the light of the facts and circumstance of the present case. … In the light of discussions made above, I find no reason to differ with the findings given by the trial court on the point of Sections 304(B) of IPC. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed”, it held.
The Court noted that the Appellant is husband of the deceased and the death of his wife has been occurred within five years of marriage and postmortem report clearly indicates that the deceased died on account of injuries caused by hard and blunt substance as indicated by postmortem report and Appellant has not explained the incriminating circumstance fixed against him while making the statement under Section 313 of CrPC.
Conclusion
“Deceased was residing at the house of the appellant and death of the deceased was unnatural and within five years of marriage. Hence, the appellant does not deserve any leniency”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that there is no reason differ and to reduce the sentence awarded by the Trial Court in respect of Appellant as it is duty of the Court awarding sentence to ensure justice to both the parties and hence, undue leniency in awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not have the necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused and does not reassure the society that the offender has been properly dealt with.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the conviction.
Cause Title- Md. Hasib v. The State of Bihar (Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2307 of 2025)
