LexCHHOTAN SAO & ANOTHER versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 843 CHHOTAN SAO & ANOTHER v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No.1613 of 2008) DECEMBER 17, 2013. [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: ss. 3048 and 498-A - Conviction by courts below - Held: A B c Conviction uls 498A calls for no interference, as there is concurrent finding by courts below based on evidence that accused subjected the deceased to cruelty as explained uls 0 · 498A - As regards offence u/s 304-8, prosecution has failed to establish the cause of death - Post mortem report indicates no injuries on the body of deceased - Further, according to FIR, death was caused by compelling the deceased to consume poison, but the doctor who conducted post-mortem E was not examined nor was the Forensic Laboratory Report regarding examination of viscera of deceased was produced - Conclusion recorded by courts below that deceased died an unnatural death is not based on any 1ega/ material on record - Therefore, surviving appel/ar•I acquitted of the offence uls 304-8. s. 304-8 - Dowry death - Factors to be established to constitute the offence - Explained. ADMIN/STRA TION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. Offence uls 304-8, /PC - Duty of Investigating Officer, Public Prosecutor and the Magistrate - Emphasised. 843 .. F G H 844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R. A MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE: Death of victim alleged to have been caused by compelling her to consume pojson - Held: In such a case, viscera report is a very vital document more particularly in the absence of any direct evidence regarding the consumption B of poison by the deceased - Investigating Officer ought not to have submitted charge sheet without securing it - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-8 - Investigation. The appellants, the father-in-law and sister-in-law C (wife of husband's brother) of the deceased were prosecuted along with deceased's husband for committing offences ulss 328, 3048 and 498A IPC and ss. 3 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on the allegations that they harassed the deceased for dowry and forced her to commit suicide by consuming poison. The trial D court coRvicted the accused of the offences charged and senteneed them to 7 years imprisonment uls 3048 and 2 years imprisonment u/s 498A IPC. The High Court declined to interfere. The husband of the deceased served the sentence and did not appeal. The father-in-law E of .the deceased died pending appeal. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: 1.1. The conviction of the accused u/s 498A, IPC calls for no interference, as there is concurrent finding F by both the courts below based on evidence that the accused husband and his relatives subjected the deceased to cruelty as explained u/s 498A. [Para 12] [849- F; 850-A] 1.2. As regards conviction u/s 304B IPC, in order to G constitute an offence thereunder, the factors that must be established are: (i) there is death of a woman within seven years of her marriage; (ii) the death is a result of any burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; and (iii) the woman was subjected to H cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative by CHHOTAN SAO & ANOTHER v. STATE OF BIHAR · 845 way of any demand for or in connection with dowry. [Para A 13] [850-F; 851-A-8] 1.3. In the case on hand, the conclusion recorded by. both the courts befow that the deceased died an unnatural death is not based on any legal material on record. As seen from the trial court judgment, there are .B no injuries on the body of the deceased. The prosecution case in this regard has not been established, as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, was not examined and the Forensic Laboratory Report regarding C th'e examination of viscera of the deceased was not produced'. There is no direct evidence regarding consumption of poison. In the circumstances, the surviving accused is acquitted of the offence u/s 304-8, IPC. [Para 14 to 16] [851-C-D; 852-A-C] Bhupendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2013(3) SCALE 552 - referred to. D 2. The Court records its concern regarding the inadequacy of investigation, the failure to discharge the responsibility on the part of the public prosecutor and the Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence u/s 3048 IPC. The Investigating Officer who submitted the charge sheet ought not to have done it without securing the viscl!ra report, which becomes a very vital document, and placing it
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.