Back
2011 (1) N.C.C. 275
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra
Criminal Appeal No. 1168 of 2005
SATYA NARAYAN TIWARI @ JOLLY & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF U.P. – Respondent
Decided on : 28.10.2010
(B) Terms and expressions — "Rarest of rare cases" — Meaning of — That the offence is uncommon — Is brutal and barbaric. (Para 8)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 304-B — Offence under — Applicability of — Essential ingredients — Requirement of — (1) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than in normal circumstances — (2) Such a death should have occured within seven years of her marriage — (3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband — (4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry — (5) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have meted out to the woman soon before her death. (Para 16)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 304-B — Expression "soon before", a relative term — It depend upon the circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of 'soon before the occurence' — It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that would brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption u/s 113-B of the Evidence Act — The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case — Expression, 'soon before' implies that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question — There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death — If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. (Para 24)
(E) Absconding by accused — Cannot be termed to be normal conduct of innocent persons — And a circumstance against the accused.
(Para 39)
¼v½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 304B vkSj 302 & ds vUrxZr vijk/k dh izdfr & nqYgu dks tykus] Qkalh yxkus vkSj xyk ?kksaVdj dh xbZ gR;k fojy ls fojyre Js.kh ds dslst esa vkrh gS & vijk/kh] vf/kdre e`R;qn.M rd fn;s tkus ds ;ksX; gS & nqYgu dk ekjuk ,d u`'kal vkSj ccZjrk dk dR; gSA ¼izLrj 9] 12½
¼c½ 'kCnkoyh vkSj vfHkO;fDr;k¡ & ßfojy ls fojyre dslstÞ dk rkRi;Z & ;g gS fd vijk/k vlk/kkj.k gS rFkk u`'kal vkSj ccZjrk okyk dR; gSA ¼izLrj 8½
¼l½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafagrk] 1860] /kkjk 304B & ds rgr vijk/k ds okLrs visf{kr rRo vkSj vko';drk,a & ¼1½ egyk dh e`R;q tyus vFkok 'kkjhfjd vk?kkr vFkok lkèkkj.k ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vykok vU; izdkj ls gqbZ gks & ¼2½ ,slh e`R;q mldh 'kknh ds lkr o"kks± ds vUnj gqbZ gks & ¼3½ ml ds lkFk dwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k x;k gks vFkok mlds ifr }kjk mRihM+u fd;k x;k gks vFkok tks ifr ds fdlh fj'rsnkj }kjk fd;k x;k gks & ¼4½ ,slh dwjrk vFkok mRihM+u ngst dh ekax vFkok mlds lEcUèk esa gksuh pkfg, & ¼5½ ,slh dwjrk vFkok mRihM+u efgyk dh e`R;q ls iwoZ mlds lkFk ?kfVr gqbZ gksA ¼izLrj 16½
¼n½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 304 & ds rgr vfHkO;fDr "soon before" ,d lkis{; 'kCnkoyh gS & ;g izR;sd dsl dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fuHkZj djrh gS vkSj dksbZ ,slk lh/kk lPpk lw= LFkkfir ugah fd;k tk ldrk fd dkSu lh vof/k dks ?kVuk ls ^rfud iwoZ* ekuk tk lds & ;g tksf[ke okyk dk;Z gksxk ;fn fdlh fu;r le; dks n'kkZ;k tkrk gS vkSj ;g /kkjk 113B lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr dksbZ dYiuk djus gsrq rFkk lkFk gh lkFk ngst gR;k ds lk{;] nksuksa ds okLrs fdlh fudVrk dh ijh{kk dk egRo mRié dj nsxk & ml vof/k dk vkadyu fd;k tkuk tks 'soon before' ls iznf'kZr gksrh gS] dks U;k;ky; }kjk vkadyu fd;s tkus ij NksM+ fn;k tkrk gS tks fd izR;sd dsl dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa vkSj rF;ksa ij fuHkZj djrh gS & vfHkO;fDr "soon before" ls ;g rkRi;Z Hkh fudkyk tk ldrk gS fd lEcfU/kr dwjrk vFkok mRihM+u vkSj iz'uxr e`R;q ds e/; vf/kd cM+k e/;kUrj ugha gksuk pkfg, & bl ds fy, fudVrk ds fo|eku gksus vkSj ngst dh ekax ds vk/kkj ij dwjrk ds izHkko rFkk lEcfUèkr e`R;q ds e/; lqLi"V lEcU/k gksuk pkfg, & ;fn vkjksfir dwjrk cgqr igys dh gS tks cklh gks pqdh gS ftlls efgyk dk ekufld larqyu u fcxM+us ik;s rks ;g fujFkZd gksxhA ¼izLrj 24½
¼;½ vfHk;qDr dk Qjkj gks tkuk & bls csdlwj O;fDr;ksa dk lkekU; O;ogkj ugha dgk tk ldrk tks fd vfHk;qDr ds fo#) ,d ifjfLFkfr ekuh tkrh gSA
¼izLrj 39½
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The hallmark of a healthy society is the respect it shows to women.
3. Indian society has become a sick society. This is evident from the large number of cases coming up in this Court (and also in almost all courts in the country) in which young women are being killed by their husbands or by their in-laws by pouring kerosene on them and setting them on fire or by hanging/strangulating them. What is the level of civilization of a society in which a large number of women are treated in this horrendous and barbaric manner? What has our society become – this is illustrated by this case.
4. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated 12.07.2005.
5. The facts of the case are that Geeta (deceased) was married to the appellant No. 1 Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly on 9th December 1997. On 03.11.2000 an FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased Surya Kant Dixit alleging that dowry was being demanded from him and the accused was insisting that a Maruti car be part of the dowry. He further stated that three months before the date of the incident the first information along with his relative went to the house of the accused and explained his financial difficulty in giving the Maruti car to the accused but they were insulted by the accused and were told to get out.
6. On 03.11.2000 at about 12 noon the first informant received information on telephone that his daughter had died. The FIR was lodged as stated above and after investigation a charge sheet was filed. The appellants – the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased – were acquitted by the trial court but the High Court convicted them under Sections 304B, 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and awarded life sentence under Section 304B IPC, 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A, and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 4, of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The sentences were to run concurrently.
7. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and the judgment of the trial court and other evidence on record. We see no reason to disagree with the judgment and order of the High Court convicting the appellants. In fact, it was really a case under Section 302 IPC and death sentence should have been imposed in such a case, but since no charge under Section 302 IPC was levelled, we cannot do so, otherwise, such cases of bride burning, in our opinion, fall in the category of rarest of rare cases, and hence deserve death sentence.
8. Although bride burning or bride hanging cases have become common in our country, in our opinion, the expression “rarest of rare” as referred to in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 does not mean that the act is uncommon, it means that the act is brutal and barbaric. Bride killing is certainly barbaric.
9. Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they call for harsh punishment. Unfortunately, what is happening in our society is that out of lust for money people are often demanding dowry and after extracting as much money as they can they kill the wife and marry again and then again they commit the murder of their wife for the same purpose. This is because of total commercialization of our society, and lust for money which induces people to commit murder of the wife. The time has come when we have to stamp out this evil from our society, with an iron hand.
10. In the present case, there was a post mortem done by a committee of three Doctors. We have perused the post mortem report. In that report ante mortem injuries were mentioned as under :-
“1. Ligature mark around the neck, 31x7 cms. Base slightly grooved with dark red. On cut section-tissue ecchymosed a tracheal ring compresses. Clotted blood under soft tissue.
2. Superficial to deep burn all over body. Blistere
SupremeToday
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
