2012 (1) Supreme 630
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Sharad — Appellant
versus
The State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2006
Decided on : 31-1-2012
(2010) 9 SCC 73; 2009 (7) SCALE 629; (2008) 16 SCC 155 – Distinguished
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-B – Suicide or accidental death – Appellant not taking plea of accidental death before the Courts below – Cannot advance such plea for the first time in Supreme Court. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
This case relates to dowry death.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned conviction and sentence does not require any interference.
JUDGMENT
Aftab Alam,J.
1. For causing “the dowry death” of his wife Savita, the appellant is convicted under section 304-B and is given the minimum statutory sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with the default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months. He is additionally convicted under sections 306 and 498-A. Under these two sections he was sentenced to imprisonment for lesser periods and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. He served out the sentences for the other two offences before he was released on bail by order dated January 3, 2006, passed in this appeal.
2. According to the prosecution case, in the marriage negotiation Savita’s father had agreed to pay Rs.9,000/- as dowry to the appellant. At the time of marriage, however, he was able to pay only Rs.4,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- remained unpaid. It is the case of the prosecution that after marriage Savita had to face harassment and cruelty at the hands of her husband, the appellant, and his parents in connection with the demand for the unpaid amount of the dowry that was promised by her father. When Savita was unable to bear the harassment and cruelty meted out to her, she committed suicide by setting alight after dousing herself in kerosene oil.
She suffered 100% burn injuries and died.
3. It is an admitted position that Savita died within two and a half years of her marriage with the appellant. It is also undeniable that her death was a case of suicide and it was caused by 100% burn injuries suffered by her. This takes us to the third ingredient of section 304-B and we find that too is fully satisfied by the evidences of her brother Dhanraj, (the complainant) PW.1, Pundalik (her uncle), PW.2 and Sau. Sheela, PW.3, one of the neighbours of Savita’s father. All the three witnesses have consistently stated that out of the promised amount of dowry, the sum of Rs.5,000/- had remained unpaid at the time of marriage and during her visits to her father’s place Savita used to tell them that the accused ill-treated her for non-payment of Rs.5,000/- as part of the agreed dowry. The appellant used to say that he would beat her if she failed to bring the unpaid amount from her father.
4. Mr. Renjith B., counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that though there may be some evidence of ill-treatment of the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry that alone would not be sufficient to bring home the charge of “dowry death” against the appellant unless it was shown that any harassment or cruelty was meted out to her in connection with that demand “soon before her death”. Learned counsel submitted that any harassment or cruelty at a distant point of time, even though, in connection with the demand for dowry would not make out a case under section 304-B of the Penal Code and in order to bring the case under section 304-B of the Penal Code, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that not only the harassment or cruelty was in connection with the demand for dowry but it was also soon before the death took place. In support of the submission learned counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in Durga Prasad and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 (2010) 9 SCC 73, Suresh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.,2 2009 (7) SCALE 629 and Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab,3 (2008) 16 SCC 155.
5. We find no merit in the submission and, in our view, the decisions relied upon by the counsel have no application to the facts of this case and do not advance the case of the present appellant in any way. PW.1 in his deposition before the court said that Savita last came to them to see her ailing father just two days before committing suicide. In that visit also she told her father that unless he paid Rs.5,000/-, she would not remain alive and it would be the end of her life. The following day, she left her father’s place and went to her matrimonial home and in the evening of the same day she committed suicid
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.