Dowry death does not made out if the death is natural

My wife died of a snake bite. We are living in a village, and there is no medical facility. When the snake bit my wife, we took her to the town for medical treatment, but she died in the way. We did not report the incident to the police but informed the parents of my wife. Her parents were present in the funeral without any doubt towards the cause of death.

But after one month my father in law registered an FIR against my parents and me under section 304B & 498A of IPC and section 3/4/6 of the dowry prohibition act. The magistrate has framed charges against us under the sections mentioned above and me. No postmortem conducted, and there was no dispute about the cause of death. But the magistrate has framed charges and trial is about to start. What should I do?

Asked from: Andhra Pradesh

Your father in law lodged FIR after one month of the incident. You said that postmortem not conducted on the deceased and parents of your wife was present at the time of the funeral. As per the facts of the case, the death caused due to snake venom. You have cremated the dead body in the presence of the informant, i.e. your father in law.

Delayed FIR

The informant did not raise any objection about the cause of death when he was present at the funeral. After a month he filed an FIR under Section 304B/498A IPC, Section 3/4/6/ of DP Act. He has to place some evidence to prove the demand for dowry, cruelty and evidence of unnatural death. At the same time, the informant must explain the delay in filing the FIR.

In the absence of proper explanation about the delay, the FIR seems to be doubtful. There is to direct evidence about the cause of death; therefore, the whole case is based upon circumstances. The circumstances of your case are proving that the death was natural; however, there was an incident of cruelty. If the death is non-homicidal, no offence made out under section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code.

No proof of homicidal death

I don’t know what kind of evidence collected during the investigation, but at the time of framing of charges, the ingredients of the offence must be in existence. When the informant did not raise any objection when he attended the funeral of the deceased, his conduct proves that the death was not homicidal.

No postmortem report

In the absence of a postmortem report, the court cannot presume that the death was unnatural only on the oral statement of witnesses. Section 304 B of the IPC requires that the death should occur otherwise than under normal circumstances. Without proving this fact, a criminal proceeding cannot sustain for the offence of dowry death.

File discharge application

In the current situation, you should file a discharge application before the court. When ingredients of the offence are missing the court cannot frame charges against accused. If the court rejects your application thereupon you should prefer a petition before the high court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure.

Also read: Quashing of chargesheet for the want of sanction in dowry death case

Proceeding under repealed rule is null and void

I sold a food product without the ISI mark. The food inspector raided my shop and seized that food item (Gelatine) and send it to the concerned laboratory. However, the product was pure but sold without having the ISI mark. Laboratory report proves that the sample contains no adulteration. Consequently, the test report was negative. The food inspector lodged FIR against me under Rule 48C of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. I want to know what would be the consequence of this criminal case? Whether I have committed any offence?

You have been prosecuted for the offence of misbranding under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. You sold that food item without having the ISI mark; therefore, the food inspector has filed that FIR. ISI mark is compulsory for the sale of gelatin.

As far as rule 48c is concerned, this rule has omitted. Therefore, the proceeding initiated under Rule 48 C is null and void. The food item was pure; thus, the test report came in your favour. If the report were positive and adulterated, then the nature of proceeding would be different. At this juncture, the sole basis of the FIR is the act of misbranding under section 48 C. Rule 48 C of The prevention of Food Adulteration Act Rules has repealed in the year 2006.

Section 6 of the general clauses act enumerates that a proceeding initiated before repealing of any statute or provision is applicable as the said still in force. But the provision of section 6 does not apply in respect of rules made under the Act Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. Vs Union of India AIR 2000 SC 811. Hence the proceeding initiated against you is null and void. You should file a petition before the high court for quashing of this criminal proceeding. File a petition before the High Court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure because no offence is made out against you.

Stepmother compelling my husband for maintenance

My husband is working in Aditya college for 15000 per month. We have a baby 12 months old. We didn’t even own house to live. His stepmother is asking for maintenance 3000 every month. She is demanding to take responsibility for her daughter’s marriage, and they are creating badly on us. They do not agree to be with us what should I do.

According to section 125 of the code of criminal procedure (crpc), the stepmother cannot claim maintenance from stepson. You did not mention that your father-in-law is alive or stepmother has any source of income. A real mother can demand monetary assistance under section 125 crpc.

The stepmother can invoke this section only in exceptional conditions. When she is a widow or childless and has no source of income, then she can invoke section 125 crpc. In your case, the stepmother has a child who has attained the age of majority. Therefore, she has no right to compel your husband to pay maintenance or bear the marriage expenses of her daughter.

Section 125 crpc does not provide that a stepson maintains her stepmother, who has a real child. In the current scenario, the stepmother can seek maintenance from her daughter only.

Section 125 crpc makes the children liable to maintain their parents. The word children includes real son and daughter. If the stepmother is childless, then stepson comes under the meaning of children.

As far as your case is concerned, that lady has a child. Hence, your stepmother-in-law has no right to compel your husband for the maintenance. Her claim is not recognized under the provision of section 125 crpc.

You should avoid her claim, and if she is vigorously claiming or compelling, then you should file a case against her under section 506 of the IPC. She is alleging a false demand which is not tenable in the law.

Wife can seek residence order only in shared household

My husband contracted a second marriage, and that woman has been living with us. The second wife of my husband demanded huge money as maintenance under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure. She is a very much materialistic woman and also dominating my husband. Along with that maintenance petition, she has filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act.

The Honorable Court has decided and ordered to live in my house. I am the owner of the house. Therefore, she has no right to make any claim on my property. What should I do?

The victim of domestic violence can seek residence order under section 17 of the domestic violence act. The residence order gives her a right to reside in the shared household.

As far as your case is concerned, you are the owner of the house. Therefore it does not come under the meaning of Shared household. If the husband is the owner of the house or he has been paying the rent, then the aggrieved person can claim residence order concerning that house. [Avtar Singh Vs Jaswinder kaur 2015 (3) RCR (Crl) 461(P&H)]

In your case, the husband is neither the owner of the house nor has been paying any rent. The observation of the court before passing the residence order is wrong. It should not give such an order, whereas the first wife is the owner of the house.

You did not mention in the question that you have raised your objection regarding the order. If you were the party in the case, you should have to object to the maintainability of the case. However, the court should also have to examine whether the house is a shared household?

Upon receiving the evidence that the first wife is the owner of the house, the court should have to dismiss the case immediately. It infers that the second wife has been living in the house with your consent. Therefore, the second wife has the right to live in the house; even the order is wrong in the law.

In the current situation, you should file an appeal under section 29 of the domestic violence act. The appellate court will set aside the order on the ground that the house is not a shared household under section 2 (s) of the domestic violence act. Section 29 provides 30 days as a limitation period to file an appeal before the court of sessions. At present, you cannot force the second wife to leave your house.