Back
2009(1) Supreme 85
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Prem Kumar — Appellant
versus
State of Rajasthan — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2002
Decided on : 07-01-2009
(1998) 3 SCC 309 – Relied upon.
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B r/w section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act – Even demand of dowry on other ingredients being satisfied is punishable – It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry. (Para 9)
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-B r/w section 113-B, Evidence Act, 1872 – There must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment – Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death. (Para 12)
(d) Words and Phrases – Soon Before – The expression ‘soon before’ would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question – There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death – If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. (Para 12)
(e) Criminal Trial – Medical evidence – In the case of burning the fracture of skull is not a necessary corollary – Instantly, the skull bones having been found broken, High Court was right in concluding that deceased was killed before death. (Para 15)
(f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings if the findings of the trial court are perverse. (Para 18)
AIR 1997 SC 3255; AIR 1957 SC 216; AIR 1995 SC 280; AIR 1995 SC 2505; AIR 1996 SC 1477; JT 2000 (5) SC 21; JT 2000 (6) SC 254; AIR 1990 SC 2134 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. On 23-04-1988 at about 2.05 p.m., the accused Krishnalal lodged an oral report before Jagmalram (PW-11) SHO, Police Station Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar stating inter-alia that he was married with Smt. Raju, in the year 1984 and his father had already died before 15 years back and since then he was living with his mother Prem Kanwar, the present appellant and uncle Puran Chand and he was not in service and thus was unemployed.
2. On that day, he went out from his house for some work and when he returned back at about 1.30 p.m. he found crowd near his house and also found fire in his house and people were extinguishing the fire and he came to know that his wife, the deceased was burnt and had died and, therefore, he had come to inform the police.
3. The trial court concluding that it was a case of suicide, acquitted all accused.
4. The High Court, however, reversed the order and convicted the accused persons.
Finding of the Court :
High Court was justified in upsetting the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and directing her conviction.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowing the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan questioning correctness of the judgment of acquittal passed by a learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar. The appellant and two others faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 304 Part-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the “IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short ‘Dowry Prohibition Act’).
2. Prosecution version unfolded during trial is as follows:-
On 23-04-1988 at about 2.05 p.m., the accused Krishnalal lodged an oral report Ex.P/12 before Jagmalram (PW-11) SHO, Police Station Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar stating inter-alia that he was married with Smt. Raju, (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in the year 1984 and his father had already died before 15 years back and since then he was living with his mother Prem Kanwar, the present appellant and uncle Puran Chand and he was not in service and thus was unemployed. On that day, he went out from his house for some work and when he returned back at about 1.30 p.m. he found crowd near his house and also found fire in his house and people were extinguishing the fire and he came to know that his wife, the deceased was burnt and had died and, therefore, he had come to inform the police.
On this report, police registered the FIR No. 7/88 and started investigation.
During investigation, postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and the post mortem report is Ex. P/3, where the doctors opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was asphyxia due to ante-mortem burns.
When the investigation in FIR No. 7/88 was going on, PW 1 Bachna Ram, father of the deceased, lodged a written report Ex. P/1 on 26-4-1988 before police station Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar stating inter-alia that all the three accused have murdered his daughter (deceased) by burning her and he had also come to know that a report was also lodged on behalf of the accused stating therein that the deceased had committed suicide, but the fact was that all the three accused have killed her. It was further stated in the report that all the three accused used to harass and torture her as she was an illiterate lady and accused no 1 Krishnalal (husband of the deceased) was an educated person and accused used to say that in dowry nothing was given to them and thus, they used to torture, harass and humiliate her. It was further stated in the report that action be taken against the accused for killing her daughter (deceased) by burning.
On this report, police chalked out FIR Ex. P/2 for the offence u/Ss. 306, 304 B IPC and started investigation.
After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused respondents for the offence u/Ss. 306, 304 B IPC in the court of magistrate holding inter alia that it was a case of dowry death. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session. As the accused persons denied the allegations trial was held. Eleven witnesses were examined to establish the accusations. Learned Sessions Judge directed acquittal inter-alia holding as follows:
1. That it is a case of suicide by the deceased.
2. That death of the deceased was caused due to burning and has taken place within seven years of the marriage.
3. That Bachnaram (PW.l) father of the deceased took the deceased to his house at the time of marriage of his son and kept the deceased in his house for 12 months and during that period nobody came from her-in-laws’ house to take her back.
4. That at the time of marriage of son of Rairam (PW-4), Bachnaram (PW-1) and PW.4 went to the house of her in-laws to take deceased where accused Prem Kanwar (mother-in-law of the deceased) expressed her displeasure and told that deceased be taken away by them and her clothes were thrown away.
5. That above facts were admitted by the learned Sessio
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
