BASISTH NARAYAN YADAV versus KAILASH RAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2015] 6 S.C.R. 949 · Decided: 03-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 6 S.C.R. 949 
BASISTH NARAYAN YADAV 
v. 
KAILASH RAI AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 67-70 of 2009) 
JULY 03, 2015 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal code, 1860- s. 3048 - Death of married woman c 
- In her matrimonial house - Within 7 years of marriage -
Prosecution of 10 accused - Case of one accused abated 
due to her death during trial - Conviction of the 9 accused 
by trial court - Acquittal of all the accused by High Court -
On appeal, held: Though the prosecution case suffers from D 
many infirmities, yet incriminating circumstances of the case 
indicate that the deceased was physically assaulted soon 
before her death - Demand of dowry and harassment on its 
account was also sufficiently proved- Thus main ingredients 
of s. 3048 have been proved to trigger the presumption u/s. E 
1138 of Evidence Act- The burden of proof shifts on the 
accused, which they failed to discharge - However, it has 
not been conclusively proved that all the accused were 
present in the house at the time of incident- Therefore, 7 of 
the accused who are not the residents of the house are F 
acquitted - The 2 accused i.e. the husband and father-in-
/aw of the deceased are convicted - Evidence Act, 1872 -
s. 1138 - Dowry death. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1 Although the case of the prosecution 
suffers from many infirmities and there has been 
unexplained reluctance in bringing the relevant 
witnesses on record, apart from parents of the deceased, H 
949 
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 6 S.C.R. 
A the doctor and the Investigating Officer. Even 'T' (witness 
to the incident) and the Chowkidar who saw the accused 
persons disposing of the body of the deceased, have 
also not been examined. Yet the fact that this is the 
case of dowry death, cannot be lost sight of. Even with 
B the limited evidence brought on record, certain things 
have been established. It is undisputed that the deceased 
had died during the night of 30.07.·1989 due to burn 
injuries inside her matrimonial house. When PW-5 
informant arrived at the house on the day of the incident, 
C the house was deserted except that her sister's dead 
body was lying. These two are extremely incriminating 
circumstances; as in normal course the dead body would 
not have been abandoned like this. Further, there are 
0 
ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased 
which shows physical assault. Her knees were tied with 
an iron wire even after death. This indicates that the 
deceased was not only physically assaulted which 
caused her three ribs to fracture, but she was also tied 
E up with iron wire so as to make her immobile and 
thereafter she was set on fire. [Para 9] [957-C-H] 
1.2 The demands of dowry are proved sufficiently 
by PW-5, and the letter that the deceased had written to 
F PW-5, clearly shows that the demands of dowry were 
not only made, but even cruelty in relation to those 
demands was committed. The deceased had expressed 
in the letter her apprehension of being killed. The 
complaintto the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sections 
G 494, 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry 
Prohibition Act, goes on to further indicate that dowry 
related cruelty was committed against the deceased. 
[Para 9] [957-H; 958-A-C] 
H 
1.3 The death of the deceased occurred within a 
BASISTH NARAYAN YADAV v. KAI LASH RAI AND ORS. 951 
little over 2 years of the marriage. The three main A 
ingredients of Section 3048 of IPC have been proved to 
trigger the presumption under Section 1138 of the 
Evidence Act, 1872. The death has occurred within 7 
years of the marriage due to burn injuries and there were 
demands of dowry accompanied with the physical and B 
mental cruelty against the deceased, prior to her death. 
The post-mortem report revealed the physical assault 
on her, just before her death. Therefore, the burden of 
proof must shift on the accused persons to explain the 
death of the deceased. The defence has made a cursory C 
statement that the deceased caught fire from stove while 
cooking food. There is no explanation as to why the 
deceased was not taken to hospital or why was the dead 
body left unattended to in the morning. The entire 0 
conduct of the accused persons is very suspicious and 
non-explanation of the same means that they have not 
discharged their burden of proof. [Para 9] [958-C-F] 
2. There are ten accused persons in this case (one 
of them i.e. mother-in-law died during the pende

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.