LexKANS RAJ versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A KANS RAJ v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. APRIL 26, 2000 B [G.B. PATTANAIK, R.P. S~TIIl AND SIIlVRAJ V. PATI~ JJ.] c D E F G H Penal Code, 1860/lndian Evidence Act, 1972 : Sections 304-B, 498- A and 3061113-B-Death of a woman in her matrimonial house after three years of marriage-Death found to be not under ordinary circumstances but by asphyxia-Husband and other close relatives tried under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 1PC-Presumption of law under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act drawn-All the accused convicted of all the offences charged- Appeal filed by accused in the High Court against conviction and sentence- Revision petition also filed by the appellant/father of the deceased for enhancement of sentence-Appeal allowed and revision( dismissed-Accused acquitted of all the charges-On appeal, Held: In case of death of a womwi within 7 years of marriage, by bums, bodily injwy or uitder abnonnal circumstances, a presumption of dowry deathis drawn-However, such death should "soon before" be preceded by cruelty or harassment by the husband/ relatives in connection with dowry demand-Proximate or live links must be shown to exist between the course of conduct relating to such cruelty/ harassment and consequential death-Mere lapse of time by itself does not provide the accused a defence that the cruelty/harassment was not "soon before" -Husband convictal of va1ious offences and sentenced to 7 years' RI-Order of High Cou1t confinned regarding other accused. Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 32( I )-Statement of a person regarding any of the circumstances resulting in his death admissible in evidence after his death-Exception to the general rule of hearsay-The circumstances resulting in death must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence-If such statement is in writing then the scribe must be produced in the Court-If tlie . statement is verbal then ·the person who had heard the deceased making statement must be examined. The deceased, a young woman was married to Respondent No. 21 accused three years ago from the day of occurrence. On the day of occur- rence, PW-5 (brother of the deceased) had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased to deliver some customary presents on the occasion of Karva Chauth, was shocked to see her dead body lying in the entrance room 662 KANS v. STATE 663 • and respondents preparing for her cremation. Noticing ligature marks on the neck of the deceased, PW-5 telephonically informed his parents about the death and himself lodged a complaint with the police. On PW-S's statement a case under SectiQn 306 IPC was registered against the re- spondents. On post mortem, death was found to have occurred due to asphyxia and not under ordinary circumstances. Chargesheet was pre- sented against the husband of the deceased, her mother-in-law, her brother- in-law and sister-in-law. A separate complaint under Sections 302 and 304- B IPC was also filed by the father of the deceased PW-6 against all the respondents. Both the complaint case and the police case were tried to- gether. The Trial Court convicted the respondents under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 10 years, 7 years and 2 years RI respectively. A fine of Rs. 250 each was also imposed for offence under Section 498-A IPC. The respondents filed an appeal before the High Court against the conviction and sentence. The ~ppellant/ PW-6 also filed a Revision Petition for enhancement of sentence. High Court allowed the appeal by acquitting all the respondents of all the charges and dismissed the revision petition of the appellant on merits. Hence the present appeal. The appellant, relying upon the provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872, contended that as the death of the deceased had occurred within 7 years of marriage and the prosecution had established her harassment on account of demand of dowry, a legal presumption was to be drawn against the respondents for holding them guilty and sentenc- ing them for the offences committed. The respondents contended that there being no direct evidence regarding the cause of death or circum• stances leading to death, particularly in the absence of demand of dowry soon before the death, none of the respondents could be held guilty for the1 offences with which they were charged, convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. It was also contended that the statements made by the de- ceased before he
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.