HC uphold dowry death charges against husband & ors
JKUT (Jammu), December-21-2021-( JNF):- Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul while upholding the charges framed against husband and ors in dowry death case, observed that suicide is one of the modes of death falling within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC. The expression “otherwise than under normal circumstances” would comprehend within its sweep, the death caused by burns or bodily injury or even the suicidal death.
The criminal revision petition filed by the accused in a criminal trial of FIR No.178/2014 for offences under Section 306, 304-B, 109 and 498-A RPC pending before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu [“the trial court”], is directed against the order of the trial court dated 25.02.2015, whereby the trial court has framed charges against all the accused for commission of offences under Section 306, 304-B and the case of the prosecution pending before the trial court is that on 13th October, 2014, a telephonic information was received at Police Post, Gajansoo from Police Control Room, Jammu, that a lady, namely, Mst. Pooja Sharma W/o Santosh Kumar Sharma R/o Galbaday Chak, Tehsil and District Jammu, had been brought to Government Medical College, Jammu, as a poison case for medical treatment. The Police was informed that the lady Pooja Sharma was brought dead in the Government Medical College, Jammu and her body had been kept in the Mortuary Room of the hospital. On receipt of said information, the Police initiated proceedings under Section 174 of Cr. P. C. The Officer Incharge of Police Post, Gajansoo, along with other police officials rushed to Government Medical College, Jammu, and took possession of the dead body of the deceased in presence of her legal heirs and prepared farad maqboozgi naash on spot. After post-mortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to her legal heirs for last rites. Statements of witnesses under Section 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded and on the basis of statements of witnesses so recorded, commission of cognizable offences was made out. Accordingly, FIR No.178/2014 was registered and the investigation was entrusted to Incharge Police Post, Gajansoo.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul after hearing Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi with Adv Sumit Nayyar for the applicants whereas AAG Aseem Sawhney appearing for the UT, while dismissing the petition observed that Courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term “soon before”. What is pivotal to the above determination, is the establishment of a “proximate and live link” between the
cruelty and the consequential death of the victim.” In view of clear dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, when the evidence on record is analyzed in the context of legal position discussed above, it is abundantly clear that there is sufficient evidence on record to, prima facie, hold that soon before death, the deceased was subjected to harassment on account of dowry demand by the accused. The other argument raised by Mr. Sethi, senior counsel that suicidal death does not fall within the ambit of Section 304-B RPC as the same is separately dealt with in Section 306 RPC, is also without any substance and is no longer res integra. In the case of Satbir Singh (supra) followed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhupendra, it is now beyond any pale of discussion that suicide is one of the modes of death falling within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC. The expression “otherwise than under normal circumstances” would comprehend within its sweep, the death caused by burns or bodily injury or even the suicidal death. JNF
