Back
1998(1) Supreme 505
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
M.M. Punchhi, CJI., A.P. Misra, J.
Pawan Kumar & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 604 of 1991
Decided on 9-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : U.R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, Manoj Swarup and Sudhir Walia, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Prem Malhotra and Altaf Hussain, Advocates.
Held : that within a few days after the marriage, the deceased was tortured, maltreated and harassed for not bringing the aforesaid articles in marriage. Hence the demand is in connection with marriage. In cases of dowry deaths and suicides, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence. That could be either direct or indirect. It is significant that Section 4 of the 1961 Act, was also amended by means of Act 63 of 1984, under which it is an offence to demand dowry directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride. The word ‘agreement’ referred to in Section 2 has to be inferred on the facts and circumstances of each case. The interpretation that the appellant seeks, that conviction can only be if there is agreement for dowry, is misconceived. This would be contrary to the mandate and object of the Act. “Dowry” definition is to be interpreted with the other provisions of the Act including Section 3, which refers to giving or taking dowry and Section 4 - Penalty for demanding dowry, under the 1961 Act and the Indian Penal Code. This makes it clear that even demand of dowry on other ingredients being satisfied is punishable. This leads to the inference, when persistent demands for TV and scooter are made from the bride after marriage or from her parents, it would constitute to be in connection with the marriage and it would be a case of demand of dowry within the meaning of Section 304-B IPC. It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry. (Para 14)
Further held : Even mental torture in a given case would be a case of cruelty and harassment within the meaning of Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. Explanation (a) to Section 498-A itself refers to both mental and physical cruelty. In view of Explanation (a) the argument is, before it constitutes to be a cruelty there has to be wilful conduct. Again wilful conduct means, conduct wilfully done may be inferred by direct or indirect evidence which could be construed to be such. We find, in the present case, on account of not satisfying the demand of the aforesaid goods, right from the next day, she was repeatedly taunted, maltreated and mentally tortured by calling her ugly etc. A girl dreams of great days ahead with hope and aspiration when entering into a marriage, and if from the very next day the husband starts taunting for not bringing dowry and calling her ugly, there cannot be greater mental torture, harassment or cruelty for any bride. There was a quarrel a day before her death. This by itself, in our considered opinion, would constitute to be a wilful act to be a cruelty both within the meaning of Section 498-A and Section 304-B IPC. (Para 16)
There is no doubt in the present case there is repeated demand from the husband’s side from the girl and her parents for the various articles as aforesaid and on failure, the girl was tortured, harassed by words and deeds, amounting to cruelty. As we have held above and one day before the fateful day, the husband saturated the mental agony and cruelty by quarreling with the wife (deceased) even at her sister’s place, leaving no option which led the deceased to commit suicide. This mental state is further clear by the following words which she spoke to her sister; “it would be difficult now to see her face in the future”. In our opinion all this would constitute to be an act which would be an abetment for the commission of the suicide by the girl. (Para 20)
Judgment
A.P. Misra, J.-For more than a century, inspite of tall words of respect for women, there has been an onslaught on their liberties through ‘bride burning’ and ‘dowry deaths’. This has caused anxiety to the legislators, judiciary and law enforcing agencies, who have attempted to resurrect them from this social choke. There have been series of legislations in this regard, without much effect. This led to the passing of Dowry Prohibition Act in 1961. Inspite of this, large number of ‘bridges burning’ and dowry deaths continued. To meet this, stringent measures were brought in the Indian Penal Code and the Evidence Act through amendments. It seems, sections of society are still boldly pursuing this chronic action to fulfil their greedy desires. Inspite of stringent legislations, such persons are still indulging in these unlawful activities, not because of any shortcomings in law but under the protective principle of criminal jurisprudence of benefit of doubt. Often, innocent persons are also trapped or brought in with ulterior motives. This places are arduous duty on the Court to separate such individuals from the offenders. Hence the Courts have to deal such cases with circumvention, sift through the evidence with caution, scrutinise the circumstances with utmost care. The present matter is one such where similar questions have been raised, including questions of interpretation of the stringent law.
2. The three appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 306, 498-A and 304-B IPC. Appellant No. 1 is the deceased’s husband, No. 2 the father-in-law, and No. 3 the mother-in-law respectively. The trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant No. 1 for offence under Section 304-B for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 306 for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 200/- and under Section 498-A for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 200/-. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted and sentenced under Section 304-B for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 306 for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 200/- and under Section 498-A IPC for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 200/-. The sentence were ordered to run concurrently. The High Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentences from 10 years to 7 years so far appellant No. 1 is concerned.
3. The brief facts of the case are :
Urmil (deceased) and appellant No. 1 were married on 29th May, 1985. Appellant No. 1 was working at Lucknow and had later shifted to Sonepat (Haryana). According to the prosecution case, within a few days of the marriage Urmil returned home and complained regarding demands of dowry for a refrigerator, scooter etc. by appellants. These demands were reiterated on subsequent visits. On account of non-fulfilment of these demands, the deceased was allegedly tortured and harassed. These alleged actions ultimately contributed towards a suicidal death. It is not in dispute that she died of burn injuries on 18th May, 1987.
In April 1987, Tara Chand, maternal uncle of the deceased died. Urmil (deceased) and Appellant No. 1 went to Shahdara (Delhi) to offer condolences. From there, Appellant No. 1 returned and Urmil went to her sister’s place in Delhi. On 17th May, 1987, when Appellant No. 1 went to the deceased’s sister’s place to bring Urmil (the deceased) back to Sonepat, some quarrel took between them. Regardless, Appellant No. 1 brought back the deceased to Sonepat. The very next day i.e. on the 18th May, 1987, according to the appellants, at 9.30 a.m. Joginder Pal, (neighbour of the appellant) came to appellant No. 2 and informed him that smoke was coming out from the room on the first floor of the house. When they reached there, they found Urmil lying dead on the floor with burn injuries. The room was full of smoke. Later, the parents of the deceased arrived and a post mortem examination was conducted on the body of the deceased. The doctor found that the cause of death was shock and asphyxia as a result of severe burns which were ante-mortem and were suffi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
