MANOJ & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 09-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 7 S.C.R. 505 
MANOJ & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No.1853 of 2012) 
JULY 9, 2013. 
[T.S.THAKUR AND SUDHANSU 
JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.) 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
ss. 304-B and 498-A - Conviction and sentence awarded 
A 
B 
c 
by courts below - Held: Death by bum injuries was caus£td 
otherwise than in normal circumstances - Deceased was, soon 
before her death, subjected to cruelty and harassment by 
appellants for dowry - Prosecution has proved beyond 0 
reasonable doubt that appellants are guilty of offences 
punishable ulss 304-B and 498-A - As regards plea for 
reduction of sentence, High Court has already reduced the 
life sentence awarded by trial court u/s 304-B to 10;years RI, 
which calls for no interference. 
E 
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: 
s.32 - Dying declaration - Statement recorded by doctor, 
who conducted medico legal examination - Held: The dying 
declaration recorded by doctor was also signed by husband 
F 
of deceased - There is nothing to suggest that any relation of 
deceased was present to influence the doctor. 
The marriage of appellant no. 1 was solemnized with 
the daughter of the complainant (PW-9) on 6.5.2000 .. On 
14.4.2005, she was taken to the hospital with burn 
G 
injuries. She died in the hospital the same day. On the 
complaint of PW-9, an FIR was registered against the 
husband of the deceased, his parents and his brother's 
wife. The complainant stated that in spite of having given 
505 
H 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 7 S.C.R. 
A sufficient dowry, the accused harassed and tortured his 
daughter by raising a further demand of a motor-cycle; 
that his daughter told him in the hospital that on the date 
of incident her mother-in-law (appellant no. 2) called her 
in her room, where her husband (appellant no. 1) poured 
B kerosene on her and latter's brother's wife (appellant no. 
3) lit a match stick and set her on fire. The trial court 
convicted appellants nos. 1 to 3 u/ss 304-B and 498-A IPC 
and sentenced each of them to life sentence and three 
years RI under the two counts, respectively. The father-
C in-law of the deceased was acquitted. The trial court 
further held that the charges u/ss 302 and 406 read with 
s.34 IPC were not proved. On appeal, the High Court 
upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of life 
imprisonment u/s 304-B to 10 years RI. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 If the declaration is made voluntarily and 
truthfully by a person who is physically in a condition to 
make such statement, then there is no impediment in 
E relying on such a declaration. In Ashok Kumar's case, 
this Court noticed that if it was a case of death by burning, 
entries of injury report in the bed head ticket could be 
construed as dying declaration. [para 13-14] [514-C-D; 
515-0] 
F 
Ashok Kurr:iar v. State of Rajasthan 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 
401 = (1991) 1 SCC 166; Kanaksingh Raisingh Rav v. State 
of Gujarat (2003) 1 sec 73 - relied on. 
1.2 In the instant case, the doctor (PW~4) who 
G conducted medico-legal examination and recorded the 
statement of the deceased, specifically deposed that the 
deceased told him that she was called inside and the 
door was latched from inside. Kerosene oil was sprinkled 
upon her and her Jethani had ignited the fire by the match 
H stick. Her husband and mother-in-law were also involved 
MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 
507 
in it. This dying declaration (Ext.PF) was also signed by 
A 
appellant no.1 which indicates that he was presen.t when 
statement was recorded. There is nothing on the 'record 
to suggest that any of the relation of the deceased was 
present to influence PW-4. [para 11 and 15) [513-A-C; 516-
D-E] 
B 
1.3 Admittedly, the death of the deceased ·is caused 
by burns i.e. otherwise than under normal circumstances, 
within seven years of her marriage. In view of the 
evidence on record both the courts below have come to 
the definite conclusion that the deceased was soon 
C 
before her death, subjected to cruelty and harassment by 
her husband and his relatives in connection with demand 
for dowry. Therefore, all the ingredients are present to 
convict the appellants u/s· 304-8, IPC. The prosecution 
also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the 
D 
appellants are guilty of the offence punishable u/s 498-
A, IPC. The Sessions Judge has recorded cogent and 
convincing reasons for convicting the appellants for the 
offences u/ss 304-8 and 498-A IPC. [para 17-19) [516-F; 
517-D-F] 
E 
1.4 The Sessions 

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