LexMANGAT RAM versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 4 S.C.R. 988 MANGAT RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 2009) MARCH 27, 2014 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss.498A and 306 - Married woman died of burn injuries at her matrimonial home few months after C marriage, while appellant-husband was away at his place of work - No evidence to show whether it was an accidental death or whether the deceased had committed suicide - Conviction of appellant-husband ulss.498A and 306 - Justification - Held: Not justified - Circumstances of the case as pointed out by D the prosecution totally insufficient to hold that the appellant had abetted his wife to commit suicide and the circumstances enumerated u/s. 113A of the Evidence Act also not satisfied - Every reason to believe that, in the instant case, the death was accidental - Possibility of accidental death, since E deceased was suffering from Epilepsy, cannot be ruled out - Evidently, deceased was in the kitchen and, might be, during cooking she might have suffered Epileptic symptoms and fell down on the gas stove and might have caught fire, resulting in her ultimate death - DW2, AS/, the Investigating Officer of F the case, deposed that he had recorded the statements of the deceased wherein she had stated that she was suffering from Epilepsy for the last three years before the incident and that on the incident date, while she was preparing meals on stove, she had an attack of fits and fell on the stove and caught fire - Deceased had also deposed at that time that her husband G was away at duty when the incident occurred - The trial Court as well as the High Court did not properly appreciate the scope of ss. 498-A and 306 /PC - Alleged dowry demand of Rs. 10, 0001- and the demand of scooter, stated to have been H 988 MANGAT RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA 989 made by the appellant, not established - The fact that A appellant had left deceased in the matrimonial home in the company of his parents would not amount to abetment to commit suicide - The prosecution did not succeed in establishing the offence u/ss.498-A and 306 /PC against the appellant -Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113A. B The wife of appellant died of burn injuries at her matrimonial home, while the appellant was away at the place of his work. There was no evidence to show whether it was an accidental death or whether the C deceased had committed suicide. The marriage between the appellant and the deceased was an inter-caste love marriage and, the incident occurred after few months of marriage. The trial Court came to the conclusion that an offence under Section 498-A IPC was made out against the appellant. Further, it held that an offence under D Section 306 IPC was also made out against the appellant, though no charge was framed under that section. The High Court affirmed the conviction. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The trial Court as well as the High Court have not properly appreciated the scope of Sections 498· A and 306 IPC. Taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, it is clear that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the offence under Section 498- A and Section 306 IPC against the appellant. Consequently, the conviction and sentence awarded by E F the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, are set aside. [Paras 22, 29] [1006-F; 1011-F-G] G State of Punjab and others v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (1984) 1 SCC 596: 1984 (2) SCR 50; State of Punjab and others v. Surinder Kumar and others (1992) 1 SCC 489: 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 553 and Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and H 990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A another v. State of Gujarat and others (2004) 4 sec 158: 2004 (3) SCR 1050 - referred to. 2. In order to establish the ingredients of Section 498- A IPC, the prosecution examined PW4, the maternal 8 grand-father of the deceased, who had brought her up, on the demise of her parents. PW4 deposed that the accused persons had demanded a dowry of Rs.10,000/- and a scooter and, on 14.8.1993, PW4 gave Rs.10,000/- in cash to the accused and had also promised to make C arrangement for the purchase of a scooter. PW5, a distant relative of PW4, also stated that after 15-20 days of the marriage, the deceased came along with the accused to the residence of PW4 and, at that time, the deceased had • told PW4 and others that the accused was harassing her since she had not broug
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.