The Patna High Court recently ruled that failure to examine the first Investigating Officer (I.O.) in a dowry-death case was not fatal to the prosecution’s case, because the place of occurrence and other essential facts were otherwise sufficiently proved. The case concerned a woman who died under suspicious circumstances at her matrimonial home. According to the prosecution, the deceased had been subjected to repeated demands for dowry — including a motorcycle and a substantial sum of money — and various forms of cruelty by her husband and in-laws. The couple had been married in March 2014, and within months dowry demands began. About four years later, in July 2018, the informant went to the marital home and found his daughter’s body lying on a cot; all members of the in-law family were reportedly absconding. The appellant husband claimed that the death was a suicide.
The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, arguing in part that the prosecution’s case suffered because the first I.O. was not examined, and that therefore the place of occurrence could not be reliably established. The High Court, in a judgment by Single Judge Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, rejected this contention. The Court noted that the essential ingredients for conviction under Section 304B — including death under abnormal circumstances, occurrence within seven years of marriage, cruelty or harassment linked to dowry demand — were established by the inquest and post-mortem reports, the FIR, and other evidence indicating consistent dowry demands and harassment. It observed that even if the death were a suicide, the fact that it was unnatural brings it within the ambit of dowry death when accompanied by prior cruelty or harassment linked to dowry demands.
The Court distinguished precedents cited by the appellant where non-examination of the first I.O. had been fatal to the prosecution. It held that those decisions were not applicable because, in the present case, the place of occurrence was clearly proved through other evidence, including witness testimony, and there was no reason to doubt that the death had occurred at the matrimonial home. The Court reiterated that non-examination of an I.O. does not automatically vitiate a prosecution if other reliable evidence establishes the crucial facts.
On that basis, the Court upheld the conviction and the ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed on the appellant, dismissing the criminal appeal. The ruling affirms that procedural lapses such as non-examination of the initial investigating officer will not always derail a dowry-death prosecution, especially where the broader prosecution evidence is sound and establishes the circumstances of cruelty, harassment, and dowry demand leading to the death.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.