LexDEVINDER @ KALA RAM & ORS. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 9 S.C.R. 792 DEVINDER @ KALA RAM & ORS. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2009) OCTOBER 18, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c s.498-A - Married woman - Subjected to cruelty by her husband and his relatives by demanding dowry - Death of the victim by burn injuries in the matrimonial house - Held: Evidence of prosecution witnesses fully supports the prosecution case that the victim, from a few days after the 0 marriage till her death, was subjected to harassment by all the three appellants in connection with demands of dowry - Therefore, the courts below rightly held the appellants guilty of offence punishable uls 498-A. s.304-B - Dowry death - Death of a married woman due E to burn injuries received by her in the matrimonial home - Held; Section 304-8 /PC and s. 1138 of Evidence Act only provide what the court shall presume if the ingredients of the provisions are satisfied, but if the evidence in any case is such that the presumption stands rebutted, the court cannot F hold that the accused was guilty and was punishable for dowry death - In the instant case, from the evidence of the Medical Officer who examined the victim, and the hospital records, it is proved that he was told by the patient herself that she sustained burn injuries while cooking meals on stove - The G statement of deceased is relevant uls 32 of Evidence Act - Evidence of the doctor with medical records supports the explanation of appellant no. 1 u/s 313 CrPC - Thus, the presumption in s. 304-B /PC and 1138 of Evidence Act, that the appellants caused dowry death, stood rebutted - H 792 DEVINDER @ KALA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF 793 HARYANA Therefore, conviction and sentence of appellants uls 304-8 A /PC is set aside - Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 3, 4, 32 and 113- B. The wife of appellant no. 1 died in the hospital as a result of burn injuries received by her in her matrimonial home within four years of her marriage. Appellant no. 1, B his mother (appellant no.2) and his brother's wife (appellant no. 3) faced trial and were convicted by the trial court u/ss 498-A and 304-B IPC. They were sentenced to three years RI each u/s 498-A and ten years RI each u/s 304-B IPC. The High Court maintained the conviction and C the sentence. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: 1. The evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW- D 5 fully supports the finding of the High Court that the victm, from a few days after marriage till her death, was subjected to harassment by all the three appellants in connection with the demand of dowry in the form of household articles as also cash. In the lengthy cross- E examinations of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5, their evidence with regard to such demands of dowry and harassment has not been shaken. Moreover, there is evidence to show that appellant No.3 (the wife of the brother of deceased's husband), also caused harassment to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. F Therefore, the fact that she was living separately with her husband, even if true, does not make her not liable for the offence punishable u/s. 498-A, IPC. Therefore, the Court of Session and the High Court have rightly held the appellants guilty of the offence punishable u/s. 498A, IPC. G [Para 7) [800-B-F] 2.1 On a plain reading of s.3048 IPC, it is clear that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury within seven years of her marriage and it is H 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R. A shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such husband or relative of her husband shall be deemed to have caused dowry death. Thus, where death B of a woman has been caused by burns, as in the instant case, the prosecution has to show: (i) that such death has taken place within seven years of her marriage and (ii) that soon before her death she has been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of c her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Once these two facts are established by the prosecution, the husband or the relative shall be "deemed" to have caused the dowry death of the woman. The word "deemed" in s.3048, IPC, however, does not 0 create a legal fiction but creates a presumption that the husband or relative of the husband has
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.