SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 989

2009(4) Supreme 529
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Suresh Kumar Singh — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 2009
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4432 of 2008]
Decided on : 06-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Naveen Kumar Singh, Prakash Jha, Rohit Aggarwal, Vishal Arun, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Pramod Swarup, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
To come within purview of the term soon before death’ incidence of harassment must satisfy the proximity test.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – Proximity to death of the deceased is the pivot indicated by the expression ‘soon before her death’ – The legislative object is to emphasise the idea that her death should, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. (Para 19)

        (2001) 8 SCC 633; (2006) 1 SCC 463 – Relied upon.

        (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – It is necessary for the prosecution to bring on record that the dowry demand was not too late and not too stale before the death of the victim. (Para 19)

        (2004) 13 SCC 348; (2008) 13 SCC 233; (2005) 2 SCC 388; (2006) 10 SCC 115; 2007 (12) SCALE 265; 2008 (1) SCALE 22 – Relied upon.

        (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – Incidence of harassment one year prior to death does not satisfy the proximity test. (Para 21)

        (d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B and section 113B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – In order that these provisions are attracted, death should be within seven years of marriage and the cruelty before death should satisfy the proximity test. (Paras 22 and 23)

       Facts of the case :

        1. Asha Devi (the deceased) was married to the appellant in the year 1983 or 1987.

        2. Asha Devi was found dead on 8.12.1993 having suffered extensive burn injuries.

        3. Trial judge while acquitting Smt. Kusuma Devi and Zila Jeet Singh convicted the appellant under Section 304B and 498A of the IPC and sentenced him.

        4. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed.

       Finding of the Court :

        Section 304B, IPC and section 113B, Evidence Act are not attracted in this case. However, appellant is guilty of offence u/s 498A.

       Result : Appeal partly allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. Application of the term ‘soon before her death’ occurring in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) in the facts and circumstances of the present case is the question involved herein.

3. Asha Devi (the deceased) was married to the appellant. The date of their marriage, however, is in dispute viz. whether the same had taken place in the year 1983 or in the year 1987. Asha Devi was found dead on 8.12.1993 having suffered extensive burn injuries.

4. On or about 8.12.1993 at about 5.10 p.m., a First Information Report (“FIR” for short) was lodged against the appellant and his family members by Ajmer Singh (P.W.1.), brother of the deceased, inter alia alleging:

“I, Ajmer Singh s/o Ranbahadur Singh R/o Nigohi, P.S. Deeh Janpad Raebareli, my elder sister Asha Devi was married in 1987 with Suresh Kumar Singh s/o Manbodh Singh at village Budhwar, P.S. Deeh, Janpad Raebareli. After marriage my brother in law, his younger brother and sister Kusuma were harassing her and asking for dowry. My brother in law demanded Rs.5000/- at the time of marriage of his sister. This was told by my sister and gave the money. Thereafter demand for more money, ring and chain was made, in this regard she was burnt year ago. I had got her treated and had asked her to live today on 8.12.1993 at about 12’O clock. One unknown person who is her neighbour came to my house and informed that your sister has been done to death and her dead body is lying and are preparing to cremate her. I reached the site and saw my sister who was lying burnt and dead. I believe that Suresh Singh, Zilajeet Singh S/o Manbodh Singh and their elder sister Kusuma D/o Manbodh Singh S/o Budhwar, P.S. Deeh, Distt. Raebareli have burnt and killed my sister. Therefore, you are requested to lodge report and prosecute.”

5. We may furthermore notice the injuries found by the Autopsy Surgeon in his post mortem examination on the body of the deceased, which are as under:

“I to III degree burn on front and back of skull, neck, front and side of whole chest with upper part of abdomen, let axilla and whole arm and back of shoulder and scapular region, with exholate and pus coming out from right elbow region. Total burn about 40%.

In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is shock as a result of ante mortem burn injuries.

6. The Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet. Cognizance was taken under Section 304B and Section 498A of the IPC.

The prosecution in support of its case examined four witnesses.

7. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant were: (1) that the death of the deceased occurred by way of an accident; (2) the marriage having taken place in the year 1983 that is not within a period of seven years from the date of her death, Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC were not applicable.

8. By reason of a judgment and order dated 30.4.1996, the learned trial judge while acquitting Smt. Kusuma Devi and Zila Jeet Singh convicted the appellant under Section 304B and 498A of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304B IPC and to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 498A IPC inter alia holding:

(i) The marriage had taken place in the year 1987.

(ii) The prosecution has not been able to prove demand of dowry from the family members of the deceased.

(iii) Appellant had made an attempt to cause burn injuries to her one year prior to the date of occurrence.

9. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

10. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inter alia would submit:

(i) that the trial court and consequently the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgments insofar as they failed to take into consideration that sufficient evidence had been brought on record to show that marriag































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top