LexBANSI LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B 12011) 1 S.C.R. 724 BANSI LAL V. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1322 of 2004) . JANUARY 14, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: C s.498A - Suicide by married woman - A/legation of maltreatment and cruelty against husband on account of demand of dowry - Victim-deceased had left matrimonial home just after one year of marriage and stayed with her parents for 14 months continuously - She r.ejoined D matrimonial home only at the assurance givt;Jn in the panchayat by accused and his family members that she would not be humiliated and subjected to cruelty - Three years after marriage, she committed suicide - Conviction of husband u/ s.498A - Challenged - Held: While considering the case u/ E s.498-A, cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and should be continuous making life of the deceased miserable forcing her to commit suicide - Jn the instant case, there was demand of scooter by the accused in the close proximity of the death - The demand was consistent F and persistent as the father and the brother of the deceased had specifically deposed that the demand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else - Both these witnesses were subjected to long cross-examination, however, nothing could be elicited from them to show that the a/legations made by G the prosecution could be false - Conviction upheld - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 1138. Evidence Act, 1872: s. 113A and s. 1138 - Distinction between. H 724 ..... - BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 725 s. 1138 - Necessary ingredients ...., Discussed. Evidence: A Suicide note - Evidentiary value of - On facts, held: The authorship of the suicide note was not proved by producing . 8 witnesses nor the said document was sent to handwriting expert along with the admitted signature of the deceased for comparison - Prosecution could not establish nexus of the deceased with the said note - Onus was on the accused to ·establish his defence by sufficient evidence to rebut presumption that he had caused the dowry death, which he C failed to discharge - Courts below were right iQ ignoring the said note - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3048, 498A. The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased was married to the appellant on 4th April, 1988. After one o year of marrii:tge, the deceased came and stayed with her parents for about 14 months and after convening a panchayat of close relatives, she returned to her matrimonial home. On 25th June, 1991, the father of the deceased lodged an FIR that the deceased had E committed suicide, making allegations that the deceased was consistently harassed by the appellant and was . maltreated and harassed for bringing dowry. The trial court convicted the appellant and his Q'lOther under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306, IPC. The High Court acquitted appellant's mother but dismissed the appeal of F the appellant. In the instant appeal, the defence raised by the appellant was that there was no demand of scooter or dowry and that the deceased wal!!ed to marry some other G person and her marriage with the appellant was .~gainst her will, due to which she felt suffocated and committed suicide, leaving a suicide note (Ex P-2) to that effect. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 726 SUPREME COURr REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R A HELQ: 1. The theory of love affair of the deceased was disbelieved by the courts below. Ex.P-2, the note allegedly recovered by the Investigating Officer was t~lly rejected from consideration in ev.idence for the simple reason that no nexus of the deceased could be B established with this document. There was no evidence worth the name from the side of the prosecution or from the defence to indicate that the writing Ex.P-2 was, in fact, in the hand of the deceased. The father and the brother of the deceased when stepped into the witness-box did c not say even a word that the document Ex.P-2 was written in the hand of the deceased. Even the defence counsel did not put any specific question/suggestion to these witnesses about authorship of this document, knowing very well that the Investigating Officer had taken 0 it into possession from the almirah of their house. The Investigating Officer (PW6) in his cross-examination stated that the diary, letter and ball-pen were lying in the room and he enquired about the author of the said letter Ex.P-2 and it was revealed that the same was written by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.