DEEN DAYAL & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 07-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 1 S.C.R. 56 
A 
DEEN DAYAL & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2006) 
B 
JANUARY 07, 2009 
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.498-A, and 304-8 - Dowry death -
Woman found dead in well - Two injuries found, one on her -
c nose and other in parietal area of the head, which could not 
be caused in course of fall into the water- Doctor was definite 
that two injuries were the result of two separate blows b.v some 
hard and blunt substance - Evidence of witness show that 
soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and 
D harassment by her husband and in laws due to non fulfilment 
of dowry demand - Held: Husband and in laws guilty under 
' 
ss.498-A s.304-8 - Crime against woman. 
Evidence - Reading of - Held: To be read as a whole . 
E and not by plucking out one or two sentences from here and 
there. 
Prosecution case was that on 6.9.1998, deceased 
was killed by the appellants who were husband and in-
laws and her dead body was thrown in well near the 
F hous& of the appellants. The doctors' report was that 
cause of death was not by drowning and was due to 
coma resulting from head injury, which was possibly 
caned by some blunt weapons. The trial court acquitted 
the appe11ants. On appeal, High Court convicted the 
G appeltants under ss.498A and 3048 IPC. 
• 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that 
"' 
the deceased slipped into the well accidentally and 
smashed her head against the wall of the well; that there 
H 
56 
DEEN DAYAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 
57 
\• 
was no evidence of demand for dowry by the appellants A 
or her being subjected to cruelty or harassment by the 
appellants for or in connection with the demand for 
dowry and that too soon before her death. In support of 
the submission that the appellants did not make any 
demand for dowry, the appellant placed reliance on B 
certain sentences picked up from the evidence of PW 1, 
the father of the deceased. Appellant referred to two 
.. , 
sentences from the statement of PW 1 in reply to the 
court's questions where he said that no dowry was 
decided at the time of the marriage and then pointed out c 
two or three sentences from his cross examination where 
he said that there was no talk of dowry at the time of 
engagement and marriage of his daughter. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
D 
;, 
HELD: 1. The contention of appellants that in course 
of her fall in the deep well (water surface in the well was 
at a depth of 60-70 ft.), deceased might have smashed her 
head against the wall of the well and as a result she went 
into coma' even before hitting the water surface, is not E 
acceptable. According to the investigating officer, the 
mouth of the well was half covered by wooden planks 
and a pulley was fixed over the other open half for pulling 
up the filled up bucket. With that kind of arrangement it 
was highly unlikely for a person to slip and fall down in 
F 
the well. But even assuming that such an accident took 
place, no injuries as found on the person of deceased 
could be caused in course of the fall into the water. The 
investigating officer described the well in question as a 
kuccha well, that is to say its inner walls were not brick G 
lined. Deceased had suffered two injuries, one over her 
~· 
nose and the other in the parietal area of the head. The 
doctor was quite definite that the two injuries were the 
result of two separate blows by some hard and blunt 
substance. In cross examination, he said that the two H 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A injuries could be caused by dashing against two different 
projections; those could not be caused by a single 
projection. It is unlikely that deceased fell down inside the 
well and getting her face and head smashed twice against 
two projections jutting out from the soft clay inner walls 
B without any lining of bricks. There is no manner of doubt 
that deceased was first beaten and then her body was 
dumped into the well when she was dying or was already 
dead. [Para 6) [64-C-H; 65-A] 
c 
2. The witness examined by defence stated that the 
appellants kept deceased with great love and affection 
and further that she died due to an accidental fall into the 
well, and that he himself saw her slipping while bending 
down to pull up the bucket full of water and falling into 
the well head downwards. The evidence of this witness 
D has no value. As a matter of fact the defence witness did 
not make any st

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