The Allahabad High Court has upheld charges against Mayank Gautam for dowry death and murder in connection with the death of his wife, Shailey Gautam, dismissing his application for discharge. The court observed that the evidence on record indicates deliberate cruelty and harassment, which led to her death within six months of marriage. The judgment was delivered by Justice Anish Kumar Gupta.
Background of the Case:
Shailey Gautam married Mayank Gautam on March 2, 2016. Shortly after the wedding, her brother, Jalaj Sharma, lodged an FIR on July 20, 2016, alleging that Shailey was subjected to harassment and physical abuse by Mayank and his family due to insufficient dowry. A demand for an additional ₹2,00,000 was made, and when it was not met, Shailey was allegedly tortured and kept without food, leading to severe health deterioration.
On July 16, 2016, a disturbing video was sent to Jalaj Sharma, showing Shailey in an unconscious state, which prompted her family to take her to Sharda Hospital in Greater Noida. Despite medical efforts, Shailey succumbed to her injuries on August 12, 2016. An autopsy revealed multiple contusions and a diagnosis of Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy, a condition caused by severe deprivation of oxygen and blood to the brain, which the court noted could result from being kept without food for an extended period.
Legal Issues:
The primary legal issue was whether the death of Shailey Gautam could be categorized as a ‘dowry death’ under Section 304B of the IPC and whether the additional charge under Section 302 IPC for murder was applicable.
1. Dowry Death (Section 304B IPC): For a death to be categorized as a dowry death, it must be unnatural and occur within seven years of marriage, with evidence of cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands. The court found that the criteria were met, as Shailey’s death occurred within six months of her marriage and was preceded by repeated dowry demands and cruelty.
2. Murder (Section 302 IPC): The court considered whether the deliberate deprivation of food and resulting health complications could amount to murder. It concluded that there was prima facie evidence suggesting an intention to cause severe harm or death, thereby justifying the additional charge.
3. Simultaneous Charges under Section 304B and 302 IPC: The defense argued that both charges could not be framed simultaneously. However, the court cited a precedent allowing for both charges to be framed, with conviction possible under either but not both.
Court’s Observations:
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta made several critical observations, including:
– “The deceased was not provided food for a sufficiently long period, resulting in a severe deficiency of oxygen and blood supply to the brain. This deliberate act of cruelty cannot be considered a natural death but a deliberate act with a clear intent to cause harm or death.”
– The court rejected the argument that Shailey’s death was due to a pre-existing medical condition, emphasizing that the condition itself was induced by deliberate starvation and mistreatment by the accused.
The application for discharge filed by Mayank Gautam was dismissed. The court affirmed the framing of charges under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, and 302 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, observing that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed to trial.
Case Details:
– Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 5811 of 2019
– Bench: Justice Anish Kumar Gupta
– Counsels:
The applicant, Mayank Gautam, was represented by Advocate Amit Daga, assisted by Advocate Akash Mishra. The State and the complainant were represented by Additional Government Advocate Sunil Kumar Kushwaha and Advocate Yogendra Pal Singh.
