case law part 2

 Phulau Phoolwati & Another. Vs State Of U.P. on 18 February,

2021

Part-2

By: Pari Dharewa

Email: dharewapari@gmail.com

CASES/AUTHORITIES CITED: In case of Gurnaib Singh Vs. State of

Punjab 2013 CJ (SC) 2413, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where

the prosecution had failed to prove demand of dowry and cruelty regarding the

alleged demand of dowry and harassment was not produced in evidence so he

was not convicted for the offence under section 498-A, 304-B of IPC. Taking

cognizance of possibility of false implication of some other relatives of husband

of the deceased in Kans raj V. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 2324 where it was

held that, "A tendency has, be that as it may, created for restricting in all

relations of the in-laws of the deceased spouses in the things of dowry deaths

which, in the event that not discouraged, is likely to influence the case of the

prosecution even against the genuine guilty parties. In their over-enthusiasm

and uneasiness to look for conviction for maximum people, the guardians of the

expired have been found to be making endeavors for including other relations

which eventually debilitate the case of the arraignment indeed against the

genuine charged as shows up to have happened within the moment case.

ANALYSIS: As none of the prosecution witness didn’t saw the incident

happening, there was a reasonable doubt. Even the natural principle of justice

provides that a person receive a fair and unbiased hearing before a decision is

made that will negatively affect them. Learned counsel for the appellants

submitted that appellants are guiltless and have been falsely implicated within

the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was

mentally weak, she was cooking nourishment within the kitchen but all of a

sudden fire caught her conjointly to kitchen of their house. He encourage

submitted that at the time of event, none of the appellants including co-accused

were present within the house and on the alert raised by co-villager, the

appellants and co-accused reached there and put off the fire with their offer

assistance but the expired had passed on due to burn injuries. Which if you look

at it from a neutral perspective is a fair defence as the case can cost them their

life. Analyzing their another defense that in order to prosecute them under IPC

for violation of Dowry prosecution act, there must be a substantive evidence

present which should point to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Every case

is different from each other. The rules applied maybe same but the

circumstances are different. In case State of Karnataka Vs. Dattaraj, where the

Apex court, in the light of facts off the case as there was a reasonable doubt and

no evidence of cruelty and harassment to the deceased. The accused were not

convicted for the offence. Yet another case the appellant relied upon was Sujit

Biswas V State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406, where the most crucial part of

information known to the informant was missing in FIR in prosecution case of

rape based on circumstantial evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the

case, set aside the judgement of court and allowed the appeal. Looking at the

facts and circumstances of the case from another perspective it may vary. Like

the spouse is essentially responsible for security of his spouse, he is anticipated

to be conversant with her state of mind more than any other relative. On the off

chance that the spouse commits suicide by setting herself on fire, continued by

disappointment of the spouse and his family from the dowry, the interference of

badgering against the spouse may be obvious. Duty of the spouse towards his

spouse is subjectively diverse and higher as against his other relatives. This

doesn’t mean that the relatives pressurizing her for dowry are free of charge.

Every criminal offence is to be prosecuted under IPC but the degree of liability

is different. Some may be conspirator and some maybe the one committing the

act. You cannot charge everyone equally for the crime. The degree of

punishment varies from situation to situation.

RATIO AND CONCLUSION: The court before giving the judgement passed

out a Ratio looking into the facts of the cases, the evidence by prosecution is not

reliable and trustworthy so far it relates to the appellant no. 1 and as the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against

appellant no.1 she is liable to be acquitted, whereas the court found that

prosecution’s case against appellant no.2 was beyond reasonable doubt and is

well discussed, well-reasoned and required no interference and liable to be

affirmed. Looking at the facts of this case once more, in fact, the perished had

passed on due to burn harm inside the house of appellants and passing data

report (Ex.Kha.1) was moreover given by one Indrapal Singh, uncle of appellant

no.2, at concerned Police Station at 10:15 a.m. that deceased had died due to

burn injuries. In see of the over, since the cause of passing, personality of

expired, put of event, is not disputed and the said investigation procedures were

conducted by S.I. Gaush Mohd. Khan (P.W.5), after giving due data to

concerned Officer and his prevalent Officers additionally after holding up for

them up to significant period, in my view, as it were on the ground that

investigation continuing was not conducted by any Officer, the arraignment

story cannot be held as dicey. In this manner, submission of learned guide for

appellants, in this respect, has no substance. Like in one of the cases cited in the

case, Kans raj Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 2324, where it was found that

in dowry cases, general and vague allegations cannot be treated as sufficient

material to prosecute husband’s relatives. Which in one way or another is makes

sense. As the facts suggest that she died of burning either by suicide or set

ablaze. There was no sufficient evidence proving that the family set her ablaze

as no one saw the incident take place and as stated by the witnesses there was a

reasonable doubt that they didn’t commit it. But in case of suicide due to

pressure for dowry the husband had obligation to protect his wife and protect

her mental state. In conclusion, my recommendation for these kind of situation

is these type of things are prevailing in society. People aren’t well aware of law

and are highly influenced by movies. So awareness is a must to stop these and

implementation of strong law and it should be well regulated. Appellant no.1

Phulau is set aside and appealed filed by her was allowed and she was acquitted

from the charges whereas appellant no.2 Bharat saran Singh was held liable

under section 304-B of IPC where he was sentenced to seven years rigorous

imprisonment.