2009 Supreme(SC) 1530

2009(6) Supreme 448
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
State of U.P. — Appellant
versus
Santosh Kumar — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1199 of 2001
Decided on : 03-09-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
1. Even if the charge under section 304-B IPC is not made out, the conviction under section 498-A IPC can be recorded.
2. Dying declarations must be construed in proper perspective.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34, 304-B and 498-A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Dowry Death – Prosecution of respondent, brother in law of deceased with other accused persons for causing death of deceased by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire – Trial Court convicted respondent under sections 302 and 498-A and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Act – He was however acquitted under section 304-B IPC – Trial Court convicted other respondents under sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act – They were however acquitted under sections 302/34 and 304-IPC – Appeal – High Court acquitted all accused persons – Appeal – High Court while acquitting respondents under all the charges held that When the charge under section 304-B I.P.C. was held to have failed, then there was no logic in convicting the appellants for offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as under section 498-A I.P.C – This finding of the High Court held palpably wrong and unsustainable – The ingredients of sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act are different from ingredients of section 304-B IPC – This erroneous understanding of law led to entirely erroneous and unsustainable findings by the High Court – Held even if the charge under section 304-B IPC is not made out, the conviction under section 498-A IPC can be recorded – Deposition of deceased in all three dying declarations that accused respondent set her on fire – Veracity of three dying declarations was proved beyond any shadow of doubt as deceased specifically did not level any allegation against her husband and her other brother-in-law – If she wanted to implicate other members of the family, she could have done so – But she specifically attributed the act of bringing and pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire only by respondent – High Court without assigning any cogent reason set aside a well reasoned judgment of the trial court and acquitted respondent under section 302 IPC – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored as far as sentence of respondent under section 302 IPC was concerned – Appeal allowed. (Paras 21 to 25, 42 to 48)

        1999 Cri LJ 3064, (1991) 1 SCC 371 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Respondent accused brother in law of deceased was prosecuted herein in the instant case with other accused persons for causing death of deceased by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire. Trial Court convicted respondent under sections 302 and 498-A and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Act. He was however acquitted under section 304-B IPC. Trial Court convicted other respondents under sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. They were however acquitted under sections 302/34 and 304-IPC. On Appeal, High Court acquitted all accused persons.

        2. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court

        High Court while acquitting respondents under all the charges held that When the charge under section 304-B I.P.C. was held to have failed, then there was no logic in convicting the appellants for offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as under section 498-A I.P.C. This finding of the High Court was held to be palpably wrong and unsustainable. The ingredients of sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act are different from ingredients of section 304-B IPC. Held even if the charge under section 304-B IPC is not made out, the conviction under section 498-A IPC can be recorded. High Court was entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence in appeal, but in doing so the High Court could not ignore the vital features of the prosecution evidence. Deposition of deceased in all three dying declarations that accused respondent had set her on fire. Veracity of three dying declarations was proved beyond any shadow of doubt as deceased specifically did not level any allegation against her husband and her other brother-in-law. If she wanted to implicate other members of the family, she could have done so. But she specifically attributed the act of bringing and pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire only by respondent. High Court without assigning any cogent reason set aside a well reasoned judgment of the trial court and acquitted respondent under section 302 IPC. Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and that of trial court restored as far as sentence of respondent under section 302 IPC was concerned.

       Result : Appeal allowed.