DASRATH versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 29-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 266 
DASRATH 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1645 of 2009) 
JULY 29, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, 
JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.3048 - Dowry death - Appellant-husband and other 
accused allegedly poured kerosene on deceased and lit fire, 
which resulted in her death - Conviction of appellant u/s.3048 
- Held: Appellant was rightly held guilty u/s.3048 - Deceased 
0 died unnatural death within seven years of marriage - Report 
of chemical analyser that kerosene residues found in the 
clothes of deceased - Evidence of witness that the demands 
were made on account of dowry and deceased was subjected 
to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws soon before her 
E death - Presumption uls. 1138 of Evidence Act also fully 
established the case of prosecution - Necessary ingredients 
of s.3048 - Discussed - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.1138 -
Crime against women. 
s.201 - Unnatural death of wife of appellant - Hurried 
F cremation - Neither police informed nor the parents of the 
deceased - Offence u/s.201 made out. 
Prosecution case was that the deceased was married 
to the appellant and she was subjected to cruel 
G treatment by the appellant and his family members. On 
the fateful day, the brother of the deceased (PW-8) went 
to the matrimonial home of the deceased on the occasion 
of rakhi and came to know that the deceased was set on 
fire by her in-laws by pouring kerosene and was in 
H 
266 
DASRATH v. STATE OF M.P. 
267 
hospital. He returned and informed his father (PW-4) 
A 
about the incident. The father alongwith the co-villagers 
proceeded to the hospital. On the way, one person 
informed them about the death of the deceased. By the 
time, they reached the village of appellant, the cremation 
of the deceased was conducted. A chargesheet was filed 
B 
against the appellant, his father, the accused no.1 and his 
sister, the accused no.3 under Sections 302, 304B and 
201 IPC. Trial Court convicted the appellant and accused 
no.1 under Section 304B IPC and under Section 201 IPC; 
however it acquitted accused no.3. High.Cpurt upheld the 
C 
order of conviction of appellant. Ac.C-Lised no.1 died 
during pendency of appeal and hi~·appeal abated. 
Aggrieved appellant filed the appeal.·.· 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There can be no dispute that the deceased 
had died an un-natural death. In fact there was enough 
evidence to suggest that she suffered the burn injuries. 
D 
It was not the defence of the accused that she died a 
natural death. Both the courts below specifically held that 
E 
the deceased suffered burn injuries and died because of 
the same. In fact PW-8 was specific in his evidence that 
F 
the deceased was burnt on account of the kerosene 
poured on her body. No doubt, this witness was dis-
believed and rightly so, insofar as his evidence about the 
accused deliberately burning the deceased was 
concerned. Again, it is clear from the report of the 
chemical analyzer that the kerosene residues were found 
from Packet-A which contained the clothes of the 
deceased which were seized during the investigation. 
G 
Therefore, it is clear that the death was caused because 
of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. The 
finding of the trial Court and the appellate Court in that 
behalf was correct. The argument of the defence cannot 
be accepted that in the absence of corpus delicti, the 
H 
268 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A conviction would not stand. Similarly, there can be no 
dispute that the deceased died within seven years of her 
marriage. PW-1 specifically asserted that the marriage 
was performed 3-4 years prior to the incident. Though this 
witness was declared hostile, at least the fact that 
8 marriage had taken place 3-4 years prior to the incident 
could be safely accepted. According to PW-2, also the 
marriage had taken place within 5-6 years prior to trial. 
Again even this witness was declared hostile. However, 
that claim remained un-controverted. Third witness PW-
3, asserted that the marriage was performed 6-7 years 
C earlier to the date of his evidence. His evidence was in 
May, 1997 and even taking that the marriage took plact> 
somewhere in the year 1990, it would still be within seven 
years. The father of the deceased also said that the 
marriage took place 6-7 years prior to the date of his 
D evidence which was again 30.09.1997. According to his 
evidence, even if the marriage could date back to the year 

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