NIMAY SAH versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 02-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
   [2020] 13 S.C.R. 566
NIMAY SAH
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 211 Of 2011)
DECEMBER 02, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A r/w s.34 – Dowry death alleged –
Appellant-accused (elder brother of deceased’s husband) convicted
along with husband and father-in-law – Confirmed by High Court
– On appeal, held: Apart from vague allegations, no specific instance
of hostile attitude or persistent demands of dowry were pointed out
by any of the witnesses – Ingredients of s.498-A not proved against
the appellant – Appellant acquitted of the charges levelled against
him.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses,
it is found that P.W.10 names the appellant-accused to have been
troubling the deceased for demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/-.
However, in his deposition, the appellant-accused is named in
the same breath along with other accused persons and their family
members. Apart from this witness, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9 depose
that the deceased was being troubled at her matrimonial home,
without particularly naming the appellant-accused. Apart from
these vague allegations, no specific instance of hostile attitude
or persistent demands of dowry have been pointed out by any of
these witnesses. Further, P.W.7, brother of the deceased, has
admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased used to write
him letters from her matrimonial place, and that, none of the
letters mention any harassment on account of demand of dowry.
All other independent witnesses turned hostile and have not
supported the prosecution story. In fact, even P.W.2 who is the
paternal uncle of the deceased and a witness named in the FIR,
has not supported the prosecution story. Thus, on consideration
566
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
567
of the oral testimonies of the witnesses, the ingredients of Section
498-A IPC have not been proved against the appellant-accused
by the prosecution at the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
There is nothing on record to convict the appellant-accused for
the charge under Section 498-A IPC. The conviction of the
appellant-accused cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the judgment
and order dated 11.02.2010, passed by the High Court is hereby
set aside and the appellant-accused is acquitted of the charges
levelled against him. By order dated 17.09.2010, this Court had
enlarged the appellant-accused on bail. His bail bonds stand
discharged. [Paras 13-17][569-G-H; 570-A-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 211 of 2011
[From the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2010 of the Jharkhand
High Court, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 176 of 2001]
Braj Kishore Mishra, Vinod Kumar, Abhishek Yadav, Ms. Aparna
Jha, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Manoj Kumar, Anando Mukherjee,
Krishnanand Pandeya, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N. V. RAMANA, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated
11.02.2010, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal
Appeal (S.J.) No. 176 of 2001, whereby the High Court has confirmed
the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur
in Sessions Trial Case No. 235/1998; 45/1998 dated 09.05.2001 and
upheld the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 498-A read
with Section 34 IPC along with other accused persons.
2. The present appeal pertains to Nimay Sah, accused no.3, who
is the elder brother of the deceased’s husband, Gora Sah, accused no.1.
The present appellant-accused has suffered conviction along with accused
no.1, Gora Sah, husband of the deceased and accused no.2, Nitai Sah,
father-in-law of the deceased.
3. The deceased, Asha Kumari had been married to accused no.1,
Gora Sah, and had been living in her matrimonial home. As per the
prosecution story, she was harassed for demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/
NIMAY SAH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) by the accused persons. This demand
was originally made to her father, Devendra Sah (P.W.10), the
complainant, at the time of her vidai ceremony. Owing to her complaints
of harassment, her father, Devendra Sah (P.W.10), went to her
matrimonial home to pacify her in-laws and assured them of payment of
the said amount. Eventually when the harassment did not stop, the
complainant sent his son, Munna Sah (P.W.8), to the deceased’s
matrimonial home who brought

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.