JAGDISH & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 25-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 191 
JAGDISH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1097 of 2012) 
NOVEMBER 25, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND 
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 498A, 3048; Dowry Prohibition Act 
A 
B 
- ss. 3 and 4 - Dowry death - Death by bum injuries - Within 
C 
7 years of marriage - Persistent demand of motorcycle and 
cash by husband and family members - A year prior to death, 
in a panchayat, compromise deed also executed wherein 
accused-in-laws undertook to not harass victim-deceased in 
future - Deceased burnt to death - Haste cremation without o 
waiting for family of the deceased - Courts below held all the 
accused guilty - Husband and parents-in-law died and case 
against them abated - Appeal by father-in-law's brother and 
by brother-in-law and his wife - Held: The brother of the father-
in-law of the deceased was not staying in matrimonial home 
of the deceased - There was no material to show that there 
was persistent demand by him - Mere demand of dowry at 
one or two instances would not attract s. 304-8 - He is liable 
to conviction u/s.498A but not u/s.304-8 - As regard the 
brother-in-Jaw and his wife, they were staying in the same 
house - Courts below convicted them uls. 304-8 and there was 
no infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by courts below 
- Their conviction u/ss.498-A and s.304-8 upheld - Evidence 
Act, 1872 - s.1138. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. As per the evidence of PW-1-the father of 
the deceased sometime after the marriage, the husband 
'C' and his family members started demanding 
191 
E 
F 
G 
H 
~92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. • 
A motorcycle and dowry and harassed the deceased. The 
demand of dowry and harassment was communicated by 
the deceased to her father. PW-1 twice went with his 
relatives to the house of 'C' and informed them about his 
poor resources and that he would not be. able to give 
B motorcycle. In 1993, the deceased was physically beaten 
and she was taken to the hospital. The demand for 
motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/- continued and in 1994, PW-
1 lodged a complaint against all the accused alleging 
demand of dowry. In 1994, a Panchayat was convened 
c and Ex A-3 compromise deed Vlf<!S executed and all the 
accused signed in the same. lnspite- oTExA•3, the ·cruelty 
and harassment for dowry demand continued. PW-2, 
resident of Village Beherki and a neighbour of PW-1 
corroborated the version of PW-1 in- all the essential 
0 
particulars as to demand of motorcycle and dowry. There 
was nothing in cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2 ,to hold 
that they were not reliable witnesses, there is no reason 
to disbelieve them. [Paras 10 to 12] [198-D-F-H; 199-8, C, 
F-H] 
E 
2. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, 'C' 
stated thafon 12.5.1995 smoke was coming out from the 
room where firewood was kept and the door was closed 
from inside, roof was cut, entered inside the room and 
they opened the door and that the death of the deceased 
F was either an accident or suicide. The theory of accident 
put forth by the defence completely fell through on 
careful analysis of the evidence and the attendant 
circumstances. Had it been an accident or in the manner 
as alleged by the defence, the accused would not have 
G hurried with cremation without informing PW-1 about the 
death of the deceased or to the police. As rightly pointed 
out by the courts below, conducting cremation hurriedly 
and burning the dead body of·the deceased without 
informing PW-1 and his relatives is a strong militating 
circumstance against the accused. It came on evidence 
H 
• 
JAGDISH v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 
193 
that the distance between 8eherki and Churiyala was 
A 
about 20-25 kms. As pointed out by the courts below, the 
pyre was lit even before the father and relatives of the 
victim arrived. Trial court as well as the High Court upon 
appreciation of oral and documentary. evidence accepted 
the version of. the prosecution that the deceased was 
B 
harassed and subjected to cruelty in connection with 
non-fulfillment of demand of dowry made by the husband 
and in-laws. [Paras· 13, 14] [200-C-H] 
3.Appellant-J is Ta ya i.e. elder brother of father-in•law 
of the deceased. Going ,by the eviden·ce of PWs 1 and 2, 
C 
appellant-J along with other accused also demanded 
dowry. A mere demand of dowry at one or two instances 
may not attract the provisions of Section 3048 IPC 
though such demand might be an offence p

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