LexDEVI LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/_/ DEVI LAL A v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN OCTOBER 12, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) B -; Penal Code, 1860: s. 304-B-Dowry death-Unnatural death of bride-Dead body c cremated without informing her relatives-Evidence on record showing victim having been subjected to harassment and cruelty for dowry- Conviction of husband and mother-in-law by trial court-Conviction of husband confirmed by High Court-Plea that there was no evidence of demand of dmwy made in respect of any specific item-HELD: It D is not necessaJy that demand of any particular item should have been f- made-Before an accused is found guilty of an offence, Court must arrive at a finding that ingredients thereof have been established-- ; ) For this purpose statement of witness must be read in its entirety- Ingredients of s. 304-B explained-On facts, tests of s. 304-B stood E satisfied-Evidence Act, 1872-s. l l 3-B. Investigation: Recording of supplementary statement of complainant by Investigating Officer-Evidentiary value of-Dowry death-Dead F body of bride cremated without informing and in the absence of her ~ relatives-Later a supplementary statement of father of victim recorded that he was present at the funeral-Trial Court observing that recording of the same was not at all necessary-Trial Court and High Court commenting upon the manner in which police made all efforts to help accused-HELD: Recording of supplementary statement has G rightly been disbelieved by courts below. The appellant and his mother were prosecuted under s.304-B IPC. The prosecution case was that the appellant married the 219 H 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A daughter of PW-1, and since the date of the marriage the accused were harassing the bride for not bringing sufficient dowry. Again at the time ot'birth of her son when she returned to her matrimonial home, both the accused harassed her for dowry. A few days prior to the incident, her uncle, PW-2, went to see her and she complained B about the harassment meted out to her. He conveyed the same to PW-1 and asked him to see her daughter. On 9.5.1994, PW-1 alongwith his nephew, PW-7, went to the house of her daughter where they came to know that she had died and her dead body had been cremated. PW-1 lodged an FIR the same day. Later a purported c supplementary statement of PW-1 was recorded wherein he allegedly accepted that he was present at the time of funeral. However, a protest petition was filed whereupon cognizance of the offence was taken. Ultimately, the trial court convicted both the accused u/s 304 IPC. On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction of the D mother-in-law of the deceased, but affirmed the conviction of her husband. In the instant appeal, it was contended for the accused- appellant that the co mis below failed to take into consideration that " ., no demand of dowry was made in respect of any specific item; PW- E 1 in his deposition did not categorically state that his daughter was subjected to harassment for and in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death; that on facts of the case, presumption under s.113-B of the Limitation Act, 1963, was not attracted and, F therefore, no case under s.304 IPC was made out. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 relates to Section 304-B IPC. In terms of Section 113-B, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was "subjected by such person to cruelty G or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry". The ingredients of Section 304B are : (1) the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal; (2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage; (3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty H or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) + DEVILALv. STATE 221 such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the A demand of dowry; and (5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death. [Para 19 and 20] [227-B, C, DJ Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, [2006) 1 SCC 463; Ram Badan B Sharma v. State of Bihar, [2006) 10 SCC 115; Satvir Singh v. State of -I Punjab, (2001] 8 SCC 633; and Hans Rajv. State ofHaryana, [2004) 12 sec 257' relied on. -I T Aruntperunjothi v. State through SHO, Pondicherry, (2006] 9 sec 467, referred to. c 1.2. Before an ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.