DEVENDER SINGH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1037 · Decided: 21-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1037
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1037
1037
DEVENDER SINGH & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2018)
APRIL 21, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304B, 498A & 120B –Evidence Act,
1872 – s. 113B – Dowry death – Presumption of dowry death – On
facts, complaint against appellants-husband, mother-in-law and
brother-in-law of the victim-wife that the victim was repeatedly
harassed for dowry and she died unnatural death within six months
of the marriage – Victim went missing from her matrimonial home
and her body was subsequently found in the river after 10 days –
Conviction and sentence of the appellants u/s. 498A, 304B and
120B by the High Court – On appeal, held: s. 304B r/w s. 113B of
the 1872 Act makes it clear that once the prosecution has succeeded
in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or
harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon
after her death, a presumption shall be drawn against the said
persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated u/s.
304B – Said presumption can be rebutted by the accused on
demonstrating during the trial that all the ingredients of s. 304B
have not been satisfied – Phrase ‘soon before her death’ in s. 304B,
ought to be interpreted to mean proximate and to be linked with but
not to be understood to mean immediately prior to the death – On
facts, basic ingredients of s. 304B that death being not normal and
death occurring within 7 years of marriage established – Also
established that deceased was residing at her matrimonial home
and had gone missing in circumstances where all the ingredients of
s. 304B stood satisfied – Testimonies of prosecution witnesses-close
relatives of the victim corroborates the fact of the dowry demand
and harassment and cruelty being caused to the victim-deceased –
Furthermore, the testimony of doctor that death occurred due to the
injuries received before falling into the river – Failure of appellants
to rebut the presumption drawn against them u/s.113B, as regards
offence u/s. 304B – However, it has been established the mother
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1038
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
in-law and brother in-law of the deceased were residing in a different
house, and the demand for dowry was essentially for the benefit of
the husband only, and no specific evidence led to show conspiracy
hatched by the appellants – Thus, the conviction of the mother in-
law and the brother in-law not justified and set aside – Order of
conviction and sentence as regards the husband of the victim by the
High Court, upheld.
Bansi Lal vs. State of Haryana (2011) 11 SCC 359 :
[2011] 1 SCR 724; Maya Devi and Anr. v. State of
Haryana (2015) 17 SCC 405 : [2015] 11 SCR 903 ;
G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka (2010) 3 SCC
152 : [2010] 2 SCR 380; Ashok Kumar v. State of
Haryana (2010) 12 SCC 350 : [2010] 7 SCR 1119
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 1 SCR 724
referred to
Para 11
[2015] 11 SCR 903
referred to
Para 11
[2010] 2 SCR 380
referred to
Para 11
[2010] 7 SCR 1119
referred to
Para 11
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
383 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2017 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Govt. Appeal No.57 of 2010.
Robin R. David, Dhiraj Abraham Philip, Febin Mathew Vargeshe,
Samuel David, Amit Negi, Saurabh Sachdeva, Aftab Ali Khan, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Krishaam Mishra, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. The appellants have assailed the judgment dated 14th September,
2017, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Government
Appeal No.57 of 2010, whereby the judgment dated 17th April, 2010
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag acquitting them from
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1039
the charges under Section 498A, 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code1 has been reversed and they have been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven year with a fine of 10,000/
- (Rupees Ten thousand) and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for three months for the offence under Section 304B IPC. The appellants
have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year under Section 120B IPC and two years under Section 498A IPC.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the
appellants are before this Court, in this appeal by way of special leave.
2. The brief facts le
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.