HEM CHAND versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 06-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

HEM CHAND 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
OCTOBER 6, 1994 
[P.B. SAWANT, G.N. RAY AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 304-B and 498-A. 
Dowry Death-CrnellfWife's unnatural death by strangulation within. 
seven years of maniage-Conviction-Sentence-Held extreme sentence of life C 
imprisonment should be awarded in rare cases-Life imprisonment reduced 
to 10 years rigorous imprisonment by Supreme Coun. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 113-B. 
Presumption as to Dowry Deatlt--Applicability of 
The appellant, a police employee, was prosecuted under Section 
304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution case was 
that the appellant was married to one S on 24.S.82. After the marriage he 
D 
had demanded dowry in kind and cash on many occasions. On 16.6.87, S E 
died of strangulation i.e. to say that she died otherwise than in normal 
circumstances within seven years of her marriage. The medical report also 
opined that the death was due to strangulation. the accused pleaded that 
It was a case of suicide by stating that on the date of occurrence when he 
returned from office In the evening and entered his room, he found the 
deceased hanging from the hook in the ceilfug and thereafter he took the F 
body to his village and that he also informed the police. 
The trial court noted two sets of medical evidence, the first indicating 
no injury on the highly decomposed dead body while the second opinion 
noted some injury at the time of re- post-mortem examination. However, G 
having examined the evidence of the material witnesses It convicted the 
appellant under sections 304-B and .498-A and awarded the extreme sen-
tence i.e. imprisonment for life under section 304-B. 
On appeal the High Court confirmed the extreme punishment for 
life under section 304-B. The appellant preferred appeal in this Court. 
H 
295 
A 
B 
c 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the appeal but reducing the sentence only in respect of 
conviction under Section 304-B, this Court 
HELD : 1. The plea set up by the accused that he (cmnd the dead 
body hanging, thereby suggesting that it could be a case of suicide com· 
milted by the de.ceased for unknown reasons is, under the circumstance, 
wholly unacceptable. Though the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the 
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has rightly been 
drawn and the appellant is convicted under section 304-IPC. (298-GJ 
2. A reading of Section 304-B I.P.C. would show that when a question 
arises whether a person has committed the offence of dowry death of a 
woman, what all that is necessary is, it should be shown that soon before 
her unnatural death, which took place within seven years of the marriage, 
the deceased had been subjected, by such person, to cruelty or harassment 
for or in connection with demand for dowry. If that is shown then the court 
shall presume that such a person has caqsed the dowry death. Likewise 
D there is a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act as to the 
dowry death. (299-B, C, DJ 
3. In the instant case no doubt the prosecution bas proved that the 
deceased died an unnatural death namely due to strangulation, but there 
E is no direct evidence connecting the accused. There is no charge under 
Section 302 I.P.C. The trial court also noted two sets of medical evidence. 
This bas certainly to be taken into consideration in balancing the sentence 
to be awarded to the accnsed. Therefore, a sentence of 10 years' Rigorous 
imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. (299-F, 300-A, DJ 
F 
4. Section 304-B of the I.P.C. only raises presumption and lays down 
that minimum sentence should be seven years but it may extend to im· 
prisonment for life. Therefore, awarding extreme punishment of Imprison· 
ment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case. (300-DJ 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
690 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.90 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in Cr!. A. No. 580-D.B. of 1988. 
H 
BK Mehta, and Prem Malhotra for the Appellant. 
HEM CHAND v. STATE[K.JAYACHANDRAREDDY,J.] 
297 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. Leave granted. 
S.L.P. (Cr!.) No. 2846/91 was filed by the sole accused in the case 
against the judgment of High Court of Punjab & Haryana confirming the B 
conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. and the 
sentence of imprison

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