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

2013 Supreme(SC) 951

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA & A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Girdhari Lal – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1186 of 2008
Decided On : 07-10-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Suicidal death driven by cruelty and harassment - when can be presumed.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304B - No evidence on record indicating cruelty or harassment or demand of dowry by husband - No presumption of dowry death van be drawn u/s 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 12)

        (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Wife committing suicide within 7 years of marriage - Cruelty and harassment established - Section 113A, Evidence Act, 1872 comes into play - It may be presumed that wife was driven to suicide due to cruelty and harassment - No infirmity in impugned judgment. (Para 13)

       Facts of the case:

        The respondent was convicted u/s 304B. The High Court modified the conviction to one u/s 306.

        The State has challenged the modification.

       Finding of the Court:

        There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

Judgment :-

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-Girdhari Lal, modified the sentence and convicted him under Section 306 IPC instead of 304B IPC. For the said offence, the Division Bench sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default he has to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. Since the respondent-Girdhari Lal had already undergone imprisonment for a period of more than six years, the High Court directed to release him forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that: The informant-Jugal Kishore(PW.1) – father of the deceased Babita in his written complaint on 11th August, 1998 informed that his daughter-Babita (since deceased) was married to respondent-Girdhari Lal four years back. Her in-laws were harassing Babita in connection with demand for dowry from the initial days of her marriage. Earlier also the in-laws of Babita made attempt to set her ablaze and neighbourers rescued her. Later, the in-laws assured her parents that they will not harass Babita, but she was burnt to death on 10th August, 1998.

3. On the said complaint a case under Section 304B and 498A IPC was registered and investigation was commenced. After the investigation chargesheet was filed. In due course, the case came up for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The charge under Section 304B IPC framed against the respondent was denied by him who claimed trial. Altogether 9 witnesses were examined in support of the case of the prosecution. In his explanation under Section 313 Cr. P.C., the respondent claimed innocence. Two defence witnesses were also examined. The trial court on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the parties convicted the respondent under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

On appeal, as noticed above, the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the appeal, convicted the respondent under Section 306 IPC instead of 304B IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default he has to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the deceased-Babita died within 7 years of her marriage under unnatural circumstances and respondent did not inform the parents of the deceased regarding the incident. The burden to prove innocence lies on the respondent after the prosecution has proved that the deceased died under the unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage. Further, according to the learned counsel for the State, the High Court has failed to appreciate that Jugal Kishore (PW.1), Nand Lal (PW.4) and Smt. Bimla (PW.7) have made statements regarding harassment and torture by the in-laws of the deceased in relation to the demand for dowry which has been corroborated by the statement of other witnesses and the documents on record. The aforesaid facts were not properly appreciated by the High Court while converting the conviction from Section 304B IPC to 306 IPC and reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to five years imprisonment.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand supported the decision rendered by the High Court.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record.

7. Coming to the evidence adduced at the trial, we notice that Babita died of burn injuries within 5 to 6 years of her marriage with respondent-Girdhari Lal, thereby the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. A bare look at the postmortem report (Ext.P-6) shows that the deceased died because of the extensive burns. Therefore, the question















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