MAHESH KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 07-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
MAHESH KUMAR
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1042 of 2012)
AUGUST 07, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Dowry death – When not –
PW-3-father of the deceased stated that the appellant got married
to his daughter on 26.05.91 – Soon after the marriage, she was
illtreated by the appellant, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-
in-law, as they demanded dowry – As per PW-3, on 08.02.94, he
received information that his daughter expired in the Hospital and
alleges that the same was caused by the administration of poison
by the accused persons –  Trial court concluded that the prosecution
proved its case only against the appellant and the mother-in-law of
the deceased whereas in respect of accused father-in-law and sister-
in-law, no specific role was assigned and therefore, they were
acquitted – High Court, while granting benefit of doubt to the mother-
in-law, allowed her appeal and acquitted her, whereas sentence of
the appellant was reduced to seven years – On appeal, held:
Prosecution relied upon the statement of PW3 and PW4-brother of
the deceased, which was made basis of conviction by courts below
– However, such statements are not sufficient to prove that the
deceased was treated with cruelty relating to demand of dowry soon
before her death, in the absence of independent evidence though
available but not examined – Further, the documentary evidence in
the shape of letters written by the deceased does not support the
story of the prosecution – Prosecution failed to prove either the
demand of dowry or that any such demand was raised soon before
her death – Essential ingredients of offence u/s.304-B, IPC not
proved – Prosecution has even failed to prove the initial presumption
u/s.113-B of the Evidence Act – Thus, the prosecution has failed to
prove the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt – Conviction of the appellant, set aside – Evidence
Act, 1872 – s.113-B.
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 587
587
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 In the present case, the prosecution relies upon
the statement of PW3-father and PW4-brother of the deceased
which has been made basis of conviction by courts below.
However, such statements are not sufficient to prove that the
deceased was treated with cruelty relating to demand of dowry
soon before her death in the absence of independent evidence
though available but not examined. A memorandum Ex.PE/1 dt.
25.01.1992 was relied upon and said to be executed by the in-
laws of the deceased in the presence of members of Panchayat.
But none of the Panchayat Members have been examined to prove
the settlement arrived at. Therefore, the oral statements cannot
be relied upon in view of the letters produced by the prosecution.
The prosecution also relies upon letter Ex. PF/1 written by the
deceased to her father. The letter is to the effect that her in-laws
have started hating and suspecting the deceased’s father,
therefore, he should not give them the gold chain but only cash.
Such letter does not show that anything was demanded by the
appellant. The date of sending such letter has not been proved
by the prosecution, therefore, it cannot be said that such letter
was written soon before her death. Similarly, another letter
produced by the prosecution is Ex. PK/1 which is a letter of the
deceased to her brother-in-law(sisters-husband) stating that she
has no problem with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law but her
husband beats her daily. The date of this letter has not been proved
nor does such letter lead to any inference for the demand of dowry
by the husband of the deceased. Further, an additional letter relied
upon by the prosecution is Ex. PG/1 dated 25.05.1992, wherein
the deceased has written that she is unhappy and harassed by
her in-laws in as much as her mother-in-law does not like the
food she cooks. Again, there is no inference of any demand of
dowry in such letter as well. Therefore, the documentary evidence
in the shape of letters does not support the story of the
prosecution. [Paras 14, 15] [595-E-G; 596-A-C]
1.2 The prosecution has failed to prove either the demand
of dowry or that any such demand was raised soon before her
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
MAHESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
death. Therefore, the essential ingredients of offence under
Section 304-B of IPC are not proved by the prosecution. The
prosecution has even failed to pro

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