KAMESH PANJIYAR @ KAMLESH PANJIYAR versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 903 · Decided: 01-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ > 
...r 
KAMESH PANJIY AR @ KAMLESH PANJIY AR 
A 
I'. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
FEBRUARY I, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
S. 304-B-Dowry death-Iligredients-Explained-On facts, evidence 
on record established demand of dowry and ill-treatment of deceased shortly c 
before date of occurrence-There is no evidence that death was due to normal 
reasons-Commission of offence by accused established-Conviction and 
sentence awarded by trial court as modified by High Court suffer from no 
infirmity to warrant interference. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
D 
·~ 
J 
s.113-8-Presumption as to dowry death-Essentials to be proved-
Explained. 
Words and phrases : 
E 
Expression "soon before her death" as occurring in s.304-8 !PC and 
s.1138, Evidence Act-Connotation of 
Appellant was prosecuted under s.304-B IPC for dowry death of his 
wife, the sister of the informant. The prosecution case was that the F 
-t ,_ 
deceased complained ill-treatnient and torture at the hands of the appellant 
> 
and his family members for non-fulfilling their demand of dowry. The trial 
court convicted the appellant of the offence and sentenced him to I 0 years 
rigorous imprisonment. On appeal by the accused, the High Court 
confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentenced to 7 years RI. 
In the appeal filed by the accused before the Supreme Court it was G 
·\ 
contended for the appellant that there was no live link between the. dowry 
demand and the death of the deceased and that the doctor categorically 
stated that cause of death was not ascertainable, and as such, the courts 
below erred in recording conviction of the appellant. 
903 
H 
904 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
..,_ 
HELD: I.I. As per the definition of 'dowry death' in s.304-8 IPC 
and the wording in the presumptive s. 113-8 of the Evidence Act, one of 
the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the 
concerned woman must have been "soon before her death" subjected to 
B cruelty or harassment "for or in connection with the demand of dowry". 
Presumption under s. 113-8 of the Evidence Act is a presumption of law. 
On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the 
Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. 
Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death 
c so as to bring it within the purview of the 'death occurring otherwise than 
in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' is very relevant 
where s. 113-8 of the Evidence Act and s. 304-8 IPC are pressed into 
service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence 
there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption 
I 
operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. 
D 
(909-A-8-E-Fl 
1.2. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon 
t 
circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down 
as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. The 
E 
expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive s. 304-8 IPC 
and s. 113-8 of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. 
No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is 
not defined. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between 
the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If 
alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough 
F not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be 
of no consequence. [909-F-H; 910-A-CI 
.... ,__ 
-I 
1.3. In the instant case, evidence of Pws I, 3 and 6 amply established 
demand of dowry and ill treatment of the deceased shortly before the date 
of occurrence. The trial court and the High Court were justified in drawing 
G the conclusion about guilt of the accused. If the death was normal as 
claimed by the accused, nothing was brought on record to explain injuries 
on the neck of the deceased. As noted by the trial court and t.he High 
t-
Court, black stained rough skin on both sides of neck was found. It has 
also been noticed by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem 
H 
examination that blood stained fluid was trickling from the side of mouth 
__,.· 
... 
- .. 
KAMESH PAN.llYAR v. STATE OF BIHAR (ARIJIT PASAYAT. J.] 
905 
and brain matters were found congested. The doctor unfortunately did. A 
not consider the effect of the marks

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