LexMANOHAR LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 263 MANOHAR LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No.1188 of 2009) JULY 01, 2014. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] A B PENAL CODE, 1860: s.3048 - Presumption under - Essential ingredients - Discussed - In the instant case, the c victim-deceased was subjected to harassment in connection with dowry demand and she died on account of burn injuries - Conviction of husband u/s.3048 by courts below - On appeal, held: The statement of the mother of the deceased PW 1 was general and not specific - No specific incident was o indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accvsed-husband - The statement of PW 1 was not reliable and not trustworthy - Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made, none of the witnesses including PW 1 stated that the deceased was harassed "soon before her death" for E or in connection with demand of dowry - The accused was charge-sheeted u/ss. 498-A and 304-8 but the trial court did not convict the accused uls.498-A - In this background, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused harassed the deceased soon before her death for or in connection with a demand of dowry- Accused acquitted from the charge u/s. 3048 - Crime against women. F· Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry and she died on account of burn injuries. The appellant-husband, G his brothers, parents and sister-in-law were made accused. The trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3048 IPC and other 263 H 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A accused were acquitted. The High Court upheld the conviction. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of conviction. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. For the purpose of Section 3048, IPC, a presumption can be raised only on proof of the following essentials: (a) Death of the woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. (b)Such death took place within seven C years of her marriage. (c) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (d) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry and Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. [Para 17] [271- D E-H; 272-A] 2. In the instant case, the statement of the mother of the deceased, PW.1 showed that the death took place within seven years of marriage. Admittedly, death of the deceased was due to burning i.e. not in normal E circumstances. The statement of the complainant PW.1 was general and not specific. No specific incidence was indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accused. Her statement was not reliable and not trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry F was made none of the witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed "soon before her death" for or in connection with demand of dowry. The accused appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 304-8 IPC but the trial court did not convict the accused G under Section 498-A. In this background, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused harassed the deceased soon before her death for or in connection with a demand of dowry. The accused is acquitted from the charge under ·section 3048 IPC. [Paras 20 to 22] [276-G- H H; 277-A-E] MANOHAR LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 265 Kaliaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu: AIR 2003 SC A 3828; Sunil Bajaj vs. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 417: 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 51; Hira Lal & Others vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, (2003) 8 sec 80: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734; Ba/want Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab (2004) 7 SCC 724 - relied on. B Case Law Reference: AIR 2003 SC 3828 Relied on Para 17 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 51 Relied on Para 18 c 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734 Relied on Para 19 (2004) 1 sec 724 Relied on Para 19 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1188 of 2009. D From the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2007 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 529-SB of 1994. E Mukesh Sharma, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant. Santosh Singh, Rakesh K. Mudgal, Dinesh Midgal, Sharda Hooda for the Respondent. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th March, 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.