LexPANCHANAND MANDAL @ PACHAN MANDAL & ANR. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 11 S.C.R. 328 PANCHANAND MANDAL @ PACHAN MANDAL & ANR. V. STATE OF JHARKHAND - (Criminal Appeal No. 2173 of 2009) OCTOBER 4, 2013 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- s.3048 - Dowry death -A/legations C of - Prosecution case inter. a/ia based on dying declaration (Ext.4) and statements made by PWs 13 and 14, the brother and mother of the deceased - Conviction of appellants (parents-in-law of the deceased) - Justification - Held: Not justified - Statement made by PW13 not reliable since no o evidence to suggest that just before the death PW-13 had talked to deceased or that deceased was in the condition to make statements - Her statement corroborated by PW-14, but not corroborated by PW-12 - Ext.4, the dying declaration also suffers from infirmities - AS/ who recorded the dying E declaration was not produced by the prosecution for examination or cross-examination - Non-appearance of AS/ prejudicially affected the defendant's interest as they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine him - The dying declaration (Ext.4) was not certified by any medical expert F stating that the deceased was in medically fit condition for giving statement - Though such certificate is not mandatory, it was the duty of the officer who recorded the same to mention whether the deceased was in mentally and medically fit condition for making such statement, particularly when the case was of a third degree burn which could lead to death - G Ominous allegations were made against the in-laws of the deceased - No specific incident stated by the PW-13 or PW- 14 in their statements - Not/1ing on record to suggest that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment "soon H 328 PANCHANAND MANDAL @ PACHAN MANDAL v. STATE OF 329 JHARKHAND before her death" and "in connection with the demand of A dowry" - Moreover, deceased did not make any statement in her dying declaration indicating demand of dowry - Valid doubt as to authenticity of the dying declaration - Evidence of cruelty and harassment in general not sufficient to attract s. 3048 /PC - Prosecution miserably failed to prove the case B beyond reasonable doubt. The sister of PW-14(informant) suffered burn injuries and later died in Hospital. The prosecution case was that when the deceased was baking bread in the kitchen, her C in-laws poured kerosene oil on her head and set fire to her sari saying that she had not brought a cow and a golden ring in dowry. It was alleged that the deceased was always harassed for dowry and sometimes was even assaulted. The father-in-law, mother-in-law, two brother- in-laws and husband of the deceased were charge- D sheeted for trial. PW-13 is the mother of the deceased while PW-12 is a co-villager of PW14 who 11iad gone with him to see the deceased in hospital. Ext.4 is stated to be the dying declaration. Mainly on the basis of the dying declaration (Ext.4) and the statements of the PW-12, PW- E 13 and PW-14, the trial court convicted the parents-in-law and brothers-in-law of the deceased under Section 3048/ 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, but acquitted the deceased's husband on the ground that he was not present at the scene of occurrence. The order F of the trial court was affirmed by the High Court. The parents-in-law i.e. the appellants contended that PWs 13 and 14 being mother and brother of the deceased were interested witnesses while PW-12 was a co-villager, G and therefore their evidences could not be relied upon. Further, according to the appellant, no reliance should be placed on Ext.4, the so called dying declaration, as the ASI, who recorded the dying declaration was not examined and there was no certificate in the dying H 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 11 S.C.R. A declaration that the deceased was in a mentally and medically fit condition to making statements. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Section 3048(1 ), IPC deals with Dowry Death. To attract the provision, the following basic ingredients of the offence are required to be established: (i) The Death of the woman should be caused by burns or fatal injury or otherwise; than under normal circumstances; (ii) Such death should have occurred C within 7 years of her marriage; (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or any relative of her husband; and (iv)Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connectio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.