LexASHOK KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 1119 ASHOK KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2004) JULY 8, 2010 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B s. 304-8 rlw s.2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Dowry c death - Conviction - Plea that every demand could not be termed as dowry demand - HELD: The expressions 'or any time after the marriage' and 'in connection with the marriage' cover all demands made at the time, before or after the marriage so far they were in connection with the marriage - 0 The expression 'demand for dowry' has to be construed ejusdem generis to the word immediately preceding the expression - The expression 'in connection with the marriage' has to be given a wider connotation - In the instant case, the evidence of prosecution witnesses as also the defence witness satisfied the ingredients of s. 304-8 - Conviction sustained - E Dowry Prohibition Ac,t, 1961 - s.2 - Evidence - Testimony of defence witness - Interpretation of Statutes - Rule of ejusdem generis. s.304-8 - Expression 'soon before her death' - HELD: Cannot be given a narrower meaning - Further, interpretation given should be one which would further the object and cause F of the law enacted and avoid absurd result - For want of any specific period, concept of reasonable period would be applicable - Jn the instant case, there is evidence ofdernafld G of money 20-22 days prior to incident and on failure to satisfy the demand, victim subjected to harassment and torture when she reached her matrimonial home 7-8 days prior to her death - Interpretation of statutes - Doctrines - ·Concept of reasonable period. 1119 H 1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A s.304-8 - Dowry death - Presumption - HELD: The legislature has applied the concept of deeming fiction to provisions of s. 304-8 - Once prosecution proves its case with regard to basic ingredients of s. 304-8, court will presume by deemed fiction that the accused have caused the death of the B bride - Interpretation of Statutes - Deeming fiction. CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: Articles 136 and 142 - Exercise of power to award appropriate sentence - Conviction and sentence of ten years C RI awarded by courts below uls 304-8 /PC - HELD: Cruelty and harassment to deceased was caused by her mother-in- law and brother-in-law, who were acquitted by High Court - Their acquittal was not challenged - In the facts and circumstances, in order to do complete justice in exercise of o power under Article 142, sentence of accused reduced to seven years RI - Penal Code, 1860 - S. 304-8 - Sentencing. EVIDENCE: Statements of witnesses - HELD: Have to be read in their E entirety - There may be certain variations in the statements, therefore, they should be appreciated and dealt with upon their cumulative reading - Penal Code, 1960 - s. 304-8. Defence witness - HELD: Defence would be bound by the statement of the witness produced by it - Penal Code, F s.304-8 IPC. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.313- Recording of statement of accused - HELD: The G purpose of the mandatory requirement is to put every incriminating evidence to accused and to give him a fair chance to offer his explanation - However, if the accused makes a false statement, court may draw adverse inference - In the instant case, accused failed to substantiate his statement that the bride was in love with somebody else and H ASHOK KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 1121 as she was not permitte<;I to marry according to her choice, A she committed suicide - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-8. s. 154 - FIR - Delay in registration - Dowry death - Fifteen hours delay in registration of FIR - HELD: In the circumstances of the case, there is no inordinate or 8 unexplained delay in lodging the FIR - Penal Code, 1860 - s.304-8. WORDS AND PHRASES: Expressions 'or any time after the marriage', 'in c connection with the marriage' occurring in s.2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and 'demand for dowry' used in s.304- 8 /PC - Connotation of. The appellant was married on 9.10.1986, and his wife died of burn injuries on 16.5.1988. The prosecution case D was that the appellant, his mother and brother harassed and tortured the bride for dowry; that one week prior to the incident the deceased came to her parents and stated that her husband wanted to set up a new business for which he required a sum of Rs.5000/-; that her father E · could not manage the money due to whi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.