Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, VIKAS BUDHWAR, JJ.
Smt. Sudha And Another - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2137 of 2015
Decided on : 27-11-2021
Indian Penal Code, 180 - Sections 498A, 304B and 302 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section ¾ - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 – Cruelty and Dowry Death – Appeal against conviction - Dying declaration – Reliability of - Alleging that daughter of complainant solemnized marriage with husband after offering expensive gifts but neither accused nor family members were happy with gifts so offered to them, whenever Deceased used to visit her parental house, then she used to make complaint of appellants being sister-in-laws and husband, that dowry was being demanded them and they used to administer beating - Further alleged by complainant that he received information that his daughter being the deceased/victim had sustained burn injuries - Accordingly, he along with his wife rushed to matrimonial house of his daughter.
Finding of the court:
Undisputedly, there exist dying declaration also of the deceased which as observed earlier shows cause of death of deceased on account of burn injuries. Though there is a cloud of doubt on issue as to whether the death was an act of suicide or by pouring kerosene oil by appellants or on account of quarrel – Trial court has itself recorded a finding that deceased was burnt at her matrimonial house in 70% degree and was admitted to hospital and further she was looked and treated by doctor by way of bandage etc. and which itself shows that victim was in hospital itself from period, when she was expired meaning thereby that patient was admitted to hospital for approximately more than six days. Once in postmortem report facts of death was found to be septicemia then there is no doubt that deceased died due to septicemia - It is well settled that culpable homicide is not murder when case is brought within five exceptions to Section 300, IPC - But even though none of said five exceptions is pleaded or prima facie established on evidence on record, prosecution must still be required under law to bring case under any of four clauses, firstly to fourthly, of Section 300, Indian Penal Code, to sustain charge of murder - Medical evidence and opinion of Medical Officer and considering numbers of law laid down by courts of law in the above referred cases, we are considered opinion that in the case at hand the offence would be punishable under Section 304(1) IPC.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Budhwar, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Meerut in Special Trial No.519 of 2011 (State Vs. Smt. Sudha and another) arising out of Case Crime No.190 of 2000, under Sections 498A, 304B in alternate Section 302 IPC and Section 3/4 the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Partapur, Meerut whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for life imprisonment along with find of Rs.20,000/-each and in default of the payment of fine an additional imprisonment of one year.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a first information report was registered on 19.5.2000 at 15.30 p.m. on the basis of an application moved by the complainant, father of the deceased being Smt. Jaya in police station Partapur, District Meerut alleging that the daughter of the complainant being Smt. Jaya aged about 23 years solemnized marriage with one Sri Raghuvir s/o Dev Dutt Swarnkar r/o Acchrauden, P.S. Partapur, District Meerut on 15.2.1999 after offering expensive gifts such as Shelf, T.V., Cooler, Double Bed, Sofa, Sewing Machine, Cooking ware, Wall Clock, Gas Cylinder, Clothes and Jewellery but neither the accused nor the family members were happy with gifts so offerred to them, whenever Smt. Jaya (Deceased) used to visit her parental house, then she used to make complaint of the appellants being sister-in-laws and Sri Raghuvir s/o Dev Dutt Swarnkar the husband, that dowry was being demanded them and they used to administer beating.
3. In the FIR, it was further alleged by the complainant that on 5.5.2000, he received information that his daughter being the deceased/victim had sustained burn injuries. Accordingly, he along with his wife rushed to the matrimonial house of his daughter on 6.5.2000 and thereafter, the complainant was apprised that Smt. Jaya, being the daughter of the complainant, has been admitted by her husband namely Sri Raghuvir s/o Dev Dutt Swarnkar and mother-in-law in Jeevan hospital at Modi Nagar, Meerut.
4. Accordingly, the complainant visited the hospital and the daughter of the complainant, however, did not disclose any facts to either the complainant or his wife. Subsequently, the daughter of the complainant being Smt. Jaya wife of Sri Raghuvir s/o Dev Dutt Swarnkar was referred to Safdarjung Hospital Delhi for treatment. The statement of Smt. Jaya being the daughter of the complainant was recorded by the Magistrate on 7.5.2000 in the presence of the complainant, in which, the daughter of the complainant narrated the facts that on 30.4.2000, the appellants, who happened to be her sister-in-laws, used to often quarrel and administer beating upon her and on 30.4.2000, the appellants poured kerosene oil over her and thereafter the appellant no.1 ignited the same. At the relevant point of time, Sri Raghuvir, who happened to be the husband of the deceased/ Smt. Jaya was present, but he allowed her sisters, being the appellant, to push away from the spot, he poured water over the deceased and when request was being made by the deceased for taking her for proper treatment, the husband of the deceased took the deceased to a medical practitioner in village Saidpur, bandage was wrapped over her. In her statement, the deceased also stated that she was not taken anywhere with a view that she may not write a letter to anyone narrating the said incident and she was locked in the room. It was further alleged in the first information report that during the course of the treatment, the complainant's daughter being Smt. Jaya succumbed to burn injuries on 12.5.2000 in Safdarjung Hospital. On the basis of the complaint dated 19.5.2000, the FIR was registered.
5. Consequent to the lodging of the complaint, as noted above, a first information report was lodged under Section 304B IPC, 1860 on 18.5.2000 against the appellants being Case C
It is quite clear that if dying declaration dying declaration is absolutely credible and nothing is brought on record that deceased was in such a condition, he or she could not have made a dying decl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on dying declaration as a sole basis for conviction under Section 302/34 of IPC, the interpretation of Section 498A of IPC, and the ap....
The dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is true, reliable, and recorded in accordance with law. The cause of death due to septicaemia led to the classification of the offence....
The reliability of dying declaration, the role of hostile witnesses, and the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of death due to septicemia.
Point of Law : Hostility of witnesses of fact cannot demolish the value and reliability of the dying declaration of the deceased, which has been proved by prosecution in accordance with law and is a ....
The dying declaration was the sole basis for conviction, and the distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code was cr....
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
