Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: Bibek Chaudhuri, J., expressed that, voluntary presents given at or before or after the marriage to the bride or the bridegroom, as the case may be, of a traditional nature, which are given not as a consideration for marriage but out of love, affection on regard, would not fall within the mischief of the expression ‘dowry’ made punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Appellants were convicted for committing an offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B Penal Code, 1860.

It was submitted that the de facto complainant would give a gold chain to the appellants within 6 months of the marriage of his daughter Soma with Netai Ghosh (appellant 1). immediately after marriage, the appellants started abusing Soma with filthy language. The same was conveyed by the daughter to the de facto complainant and other paternal relations. Soma’s husband also physically assaulted her.

Demand of Dowry

Later, de facto complainant came to know that his daughter Soma died consuming poison and according to him Soma committed suicide failing to bear physical and mental torture on demand of dowry inflicted upon her.

Trial judge held the appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 498A and 304B of the Penal Code, 1860.

In the instant case, the marriage of Soma was solemnized only before 44 days of her unnatural death.

Analysis and Decision

In a case of cruelty and dowry death, direct evidence is hardly available, and it is the circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused persons to be taken into consideration.

In the present matter, it was alleged in the FIR that the mother-in-law of the deceased used to abuse the deceased with filthy language as her father failed to give a gold chain at the time of the marriage

Allegation of cruelty and unnatural death of the deceased was made by the defacto complainant only after the death of the deceased.

Further, it is significant to note that the de facto complainant did not state in the FIR as well as in course of his evidence that the accused persons demanded dowry as a consequence of marriage.

Definition of expression “dowry” contained in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 cannot be applied merely to the “demand” of money, property or valuable security made at or after the performance of marriage. 

Elaborating more on the concept of dowry, it was expressed that under Section 4 of the Act, mere demand of dowry is not sufficient to bring home the offence of an accused.

Any demand of money, property or valuable security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice versa would fall within the mischief of “dowry” under the Act where such demand is not properly referable to any legally recognized claim and is relatable only to the consideration of marriage.

 It was noted that there was absolutely no evidence that prior to her death the witnesses being PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 and others try to settle the alleged dispute between the parties during the lifetime of Soma.

As per the evidence Soma was ill-tempered, therefore, if at any incident of quarrel broke between the appellants and Soma, her nature was not such that she would silently digest the allegations made against her.

Since trial Judge failed to consider the above circumstances while holding the accused persons guilty and prosecution failed to prove the cause of death of the deceased, High Court set aside the decision of trial court. [Netai Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 1938, decided on 21-06-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Younush Mondal, Adv.

For the State: Swapan Banerjee, Adv., Suman De, Adv.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court:  G.R. Swaminathan, J., observed that,

What the government does must inspire the confidence of the people. Every time a custodial death occurs, the legitimacy of the State suffers a big dent.

Factual Matrix

Petitioner a permanent resident belonged to a scheduled caste community. His elder brother fell in love with a relative namely, Punitha and in view of the objection raised by her parents, he started residing elsewhere. Punitha’s family complained as if had been abducted.

Since the elder brother and Punitha could not be traced, petitioner and other members of the family were periodically directed to appear for enquiry before the investigating officer. Further, petitioner alleged that all the family members were subjected to physical abuse.

It was further stated that, local police arrived at the petitioner’s house and several times and had beaten up the petitioner, his youngest brother i.e. Ramesh on the next visit. The younger brother of the petitioner was taken in custody and later he did not return home.

Suicide

Ramesh was found hanging, according to the petitioner he was tortured by the local police and he died as a result.

In order to cover up the crime, police made the above-stated incident appear as if he had committed suicide.

A complaint was registered under Section 174(3) of CrPC.

The petition had been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to exhume the body and conduct a second postmortem.

Court had directed for conducting the second postmortem at the burial itself. The entire second postmortem was also directed to be videographed. Hence, the second post-mortem was done accordingly.

The entire autopsy had been duly videographed and even a statement was made in writing to that effect in the status report, it turned out that what was recorded were only brief clippings.

Custodial Death

It has been stated that a proper videograph was not taken at all and in view of the same petitioner’s counsel insisted that appropriate directions will have to be issued for the future observance and strict compliance in cases of custodial death or where it is alleged that the death is due to police torture.

Bench referred to the Division Bench of this Court in a PIL in WP (MD) No. 78 of 2019, decided on 28-09-2020.

Further, the Court stated that,

“…foundations of any democratic government rest on popular acceptance. Though State primarily functions through its coercive apparatus, its actions must be perceived as proper by the people.”

“A dead person is equally entitled to justice. I would call it posthumous justice.”

Court also observed that, Whenever someone suffers an unnatural death, the circumstances that led to it will have to be unearthed. Otherwise, there would be no closure.

To ensure the above stated, Court issued the following directions:

(i) The Judicial Magistrate conducting the enquiry under Section 176(1)(A) CrPC shall ensure that the family of the deceased or its representatives are given access to see the body both front and back and are also allowed to take video and photos.

(ii) No autopsy shall take place or commence without the next of kin having seen the body. Of course, if the family of the deceased refuses to see the body, even after so being permitted by the concerned Judicial Magistrate conducting the enquiry, the Judicial Magistrate can, in writing, permit the conducting of postmortem.

(iii) The autopsy shall be carried out by a team of two doctors who have a master’s degree in forensic medicine and are attached to a Medical College and Hospital in the State. In other words, what is called forensic autopsy must be conducted.

(iv) The autopsy shall be done by adhering to the norms laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in V. Eswaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 16-04-2019 in W.P. No. 10694 of 2019 and in W.P.(MD)No. 78 of 2019, dated 28-09-2020.

(v) The whole body shall be x-rayed in order to find out if there are any fractures. The entire autopsy should be videographed from the start of the examination till its completion by adhering to the following six phases set out in Modi ‘a Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology’ 26th Edition edited by Justice K.Kannan.

vi) The autopsy report should be prepared expeditiously and handed over to the investigating officer in the case so that the filing of the final report is not delayed. A copy of the autopsy report as well as video should be simultaneously given to the legal heir or representatives of the family of the deceased. This alone will enable them to take recourse to legal remedies immediately. 

If after receipt of the autopsy report, the legal heir/representatives of the deceased family give in writing that they intend to move the High Court, the body shall be preserved in the mortuary for at least 48 hours. If the body is disposed of either by cremation or otherwise in the meanwhile, the very purpose of holding a second post-mortem will be rendered infructuous.

While parting with the decision, Court stated that:

All of us know that hasty cremation in the tragic Hathras gang rape case led to controversy. It is in the interest of the police to take the family of the deceased into confidence and avoid rushing things through. They are stakeholders in the process and the police have to treat them accordingly.

Court allowed the petition with the aforesaid directions. [Santhosh v. District Collector, Madurai District; 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 5541, decided on 02-12-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of A.A. Sayed and Surendra P. Tavade, JJ. addressed a Public Interest Litigation filed by former IPS officers with regard to the Sushant Singh Rajput death case.

Media Trial

Present PIL was filed by former IPS Officers, raising concerns with regard to media coverage pertaining to the unnatural death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, which the petitioner’s states may tantamount to media trial.

Petitioners Counsel brought the Court’s attention to the “Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards” issued by respondent 3 — News Broadcasting Association which inter alia speaks of ‘principles of self-regulation’, impartially, objectivity, neutrality and privacy.

Further, the media advisory dated 28-08-2020 of the respondent 2 — Press Council of India has also been observed.

Bench on perusal of the above urged and expected the respondents to exercise restrain in the media reporting pertaining to the investigation of the unnatural death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput which would in any manner hamper or prejudice the ongoing investigation which is being carried out by the respondent 4 – CBI after imprimatur of the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 19-08-2020.

Court directed respondent 4 — CBI along with other respondents to file and affidavit in reply.

Matter to be listed on 10-09-2020.[Nilesh Navlakha v. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 895, decided on 03-09-2020]


Read More:

Sushant Singh Rajput death case| SC dismisses Law student’s petition seeking CBI probe

Sushant Singh Rajput death case| SC asks Mumbai Police to submit status of investigation so far; says truth must come out

Sushant Singh Rajput death | Bom HC defers hearing till 21st August, 2020 on plea seeking CBI investigation

Sushant Singh Rajput Death case| SC reserves verdict in Rhea Chakraborty’s plea seeking transfer of case from Patna to Mumbai

Bom HC | Citing Supreme Court’s verdict on transfer of investigation into unnatural death of Sushant Singh Rajput to CBI, Court declines to entertain PILs

Sushant Singh Rajput| Here’s why SC ordered CBI probe into the actor’s death [DETAILED REPORT]