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.
Comments
Post a Comment