DURGA PRASAD AND ANR. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 14-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2010] 7 S.C.R. 104 
DURGA PRASAD AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1081 of 2010) 
MAY 14, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304-8, 498-A -
Necessary 
ingredients to prove dowry death - Discussed - On facts, no 
C evidence led to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty 
and harassment by appellants on account of dowry demand 
soon before her death - Case not made out for conviction 
under s.3048 and under s.498-A - Appellants entitled to 
benefit of doubt, hence acquitted - Evidence Act, 1872 -
D s.1138 - Crime against women- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal was whether the courts below were 
justified in convicting the appellants under Section 498-
A and Section 304-8 IPC on the basis of the evidence of 
E PW-1, the mother of the deceased and PW-3, the brother 
of the deceased. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: The appellants are entitled to the benefit of 
doubt having particular regard to the fact that except for 
certain bald statements made by PWs.1 and 3 alleging 
that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment 
prior to her death, there is no other evidence to prove that 
G the victim committed suicide on account of cruelty and 
harassment to which she was subjected just prior to her 
death, which, in fact, are the ingredients of the evidence 
to be led in respect of Section 113-8 of the Indian 
Evidence Act, 1872, in order to bring home the guilt 
H 
104 
DURGA PRASAD AND ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. 
105 
against an accused under Section 304-8 IPC. In order to 
A 
hold an accused guilty of an offence under Section 304-
8 IPC, it has to be shown that apart from the fact that the 
woman died on account of burn or bodily injury, 
otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 
years of her marriage, it has also to be shown that soon 
B 
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. Only then would such death be called "dowry 
death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to c 
have caused the death of the woman concerned. The 
prosecution in this case has failed to fully satisfy the 
requirements of both Section 113-8 of the Evidence Act, 
1872 and Section 304-8 of the Indian Penal Code. 
Moreover, no charges were framed against the D 
Appellants under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition 
Act, 1961 and the evidence led in order to prove the same 
for the purposes of Section 304-8 IPC was related to a 
demand for a fan only. Thus no case was made out for 
conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-8 IPC. [Paras 
14-18] [111-8-F; 112-A-C; 111-G] 
Biswajit Halder@ Babu Halder & Ors. v. State of WB. 
(2008) 1 sec 202, relied on. 
E 
Anand Kumar v. State of M.P. (2009) 3 SCC 799, held 
F 
inapplicable. 
Shri Gopal & Anr. v. Subhash & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 174, 
referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
relied on 
referred to 
Para 7 
Para 8 
(2008) 1 sec 202 
(2004) 13 sec 174 
(2009) 3 sec 799 
held inapplicable 
Para 12 
G 
H 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1081 of 2010. 
From the judgment and order dated 28.04.2009 of the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in CRLA No. 103 
B of 2003. 
c 
R.P. Gupta, M.P. Singh and Rajeev Bansal, for the 
Appellants. 
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
D dated 28th April, 2009, passed by Jabalpur Bench of the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court, dismissing Criminal Appeal 
No.103 of 2000, which had been directed against the judgment 
of conviction and sentence under Section 498-A and Section 
304-B Indian Penal Code. By the said judgment, the learned 
E Sessions Judge had sentenced the Appellants to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ 
- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for 3 months under Section 498-A IPC and to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine 
F of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of such fine, to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 years. Upon 
consideration of the materials on record, the High Court was 
of the view that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all 
reasonable doubts and that 

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