KAILASH versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 45 · Decided: 09-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KAILASH 
v 
STATE OF M.P. 
OCTOBER 9, 2006 
[ARIJ!T PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Penal Code. 1860; 
Section 304B-df!ath otherwise than under normal circumstances-
Held, it means death not being in the usual course but apparently under 
suspicious circumstances if not caused by burns or bodily injury as "normal 
circumstances" apparently means natural death. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
A 
B 
C 
Section I J 3B-Lapse of time between demand of dowry or the cruelty, D 
harassment to the deceased-Held mere lapse of some time by itself would 
not provide to an accused a defence, if the course of conduct relating to 
cruelty or harassment in connection with the dowry demand is shown to have 
existed earlier in time not too late and not too stale before the date of death 
of the victim. 
E 
The dead body of deceased, wife of the appellant, was found floating in a 
well located in the house of the appellant. Thus her death of occurred otherwise 
than under normal circumstances. The deceased was subjected to cruelty or 
harassment by her husband and acquitted accused in connection with demand 
for dowry. Appellant was tried for alleged commission of offences punishable F 
under Section 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 relatable to 
the death of his wife. He was found guilty by the trial Court and was sentenced 
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence relatable to 
Section 304-B IPC but no separate sentence was imposed for the offence 
relatable to Section 498-A IPC though he was found guilty of the said offence. G 
Placing reliance on their evidence, trial Court convicted the appellant. Matter 
was carried in appeal before the High Court. The High Court did not accept 
the plea and affirmed the conviction and sentence. 
In support of the appeal it was contended on behalf of the appellant, that 
45 
H 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A the evidence of the witnesses who were examined to prove alleged dowry 
demand, torture and harassment, is not sufficient to prove commission of 
offence by the appellant being full of exaggerations and trial Court and the 
High Court should not have placed reliance on them It was further contended 
that the sentence, as imposed, is high. The accused has already undergone 
B nearly eights years of the sentence. 
Partly allowing the appeal, as regards quantum of sentence, the Court 
HELD I.I. Witnesses have spoken about dowry demand, torture and 
harassment and nothing substantially discrepant can be noticed. The 
witnesses, though cross-examined at length, stated in clear terms about th1~ 
C dowry demand, the torture and the harassment. In that view of the matter the 
trial Court and the High Court were justified in holding the accused guilty .. 
(48-E) 
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000( 5 SCC 207, relied upon. 
2.1. No presumption under Section ll3-B of the Evidence Act would be 
D drawn against the accused if it is shown that after the alleged demand, cruelty 
or harassment, the dispute stood resolved and there was no evidence of cruelty 
or harassment thereafter. Mare lapse of some time by itself would not provide 
to an accused a defence, if the course of conduct relating to cruelty or 
harassment in connection with the dowry demand is shown to have existed 
earlier in time not too late and not too stale before the date of death of the 
E victim. The expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval 
should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the 
death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link. 
F 
G 
H 
(49-H; 50-A-B; C-D) 
Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, [2003) 8 SCC 80, referred to. 
3.1. Th" expression "normal circumstances" apparently means natural 
death. In other words the expression "otherwise than under normal 
circumstances" means death not being in the usual course but apparently 
under suspicious circumstances if not caused by burns or bodily injury. 
(50-D-E) 
Shanti v. State of Haryana, (1991 f I SCC 371 and Thakkan Jha v. State 
of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 348, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 027 of 
2006. 
From the Final Order and Judgment and dated 4.12.2003 of the High 
) 
.. 
.. 
KAILASH v. STATE OF M.P. [PASA Y AT. J.] 
47 
Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Crl. A. No. 1806/2000. A 
Sudhir Kulsreshtra and Kedar Nath Yadav for the Appellant. 
C.D. Singh, Munendra Kumar Singh, Merusagar Sa

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