LexPRADEEP KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.I (2009) 5 S.C.R. 297 PRADEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2006) MARCH 31, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : s.3048 and s.498-A - Essential ingredients- Deceased A B c harassed by husband on account of dowry demand .... Conviction under s.3048, s.498-A and s.302 - Affirmed by High Court - Held : On facts, evidence adduced by prosecution to substantiate the a/legation of commission of offence under s.302 was that accused and deceased stayed D in the same house - That was not sufficient to-hold the accused guilty for offence under s.302 - However accusation relating to s~048 satisfied - Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet ends of justice. E Prosecution case was that appellant was harassing his wife for bringing dowry items. On the fateful day, she was found dead. Trial Court convicted appellant and the co-accused guilty under s.3048 and s.498A IPC. Appellant was separately also convicted under s.302 IPC F and awarded life imprisonment. High Court directed acquittal of the co-accused persons but upheld the conviction and sentence of appellant. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: It is undisputed that the marriage took place on 9.10.1996 and the date of occurrence was 25.1.1997. The co-accused persons were the father and the brother 297 H 298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A of the appellant. The only evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was that the accused and the deceased stayed in the same house. That was not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for 8 offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on the facts of the case. However, the accusations related to Section 3048 IPC were satisfied. Therefore while setting aside the conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the conviction, so far as it related to Section 3048 IPC is C upheld. Custodial sentence of ten years would meet the ends of justice. [Paras 6 and 8) [301-C-D; 302-C] CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2006. 0 From the Judgment & Order dated 07.03.2005 of the High E Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing in Criminal Appeal No. 740-DB of 2002. Nagendra Rai, Keshav Mohan, W. Gilani and T. Singh (for Ejaz Maqbool) for the Appellant. T.V. George for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is F to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 304(8) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the first offence but no G separate sentence was imposed for the second offence. H 2. Appellant alongwith two others faced trial. Each was charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 304(C::) IPC and Section 498A IPC. Appellant alone - \ PRADEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 299 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] was separately charged for offence punishable under Section A 302 IPC. 3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: Kewal Krishan (PW 4) is the complainant. He is a resident B j of Ambala City. He is the Directo~ of G.G. Flour Mills. He had four daughters and two sons. Marriage of his eldest daughter Suman Rani alias Anamika (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was solemnized with appellant Pardeep Kumar alias Raju on 19.10.1996 in Laxmi Palace at Patiala. As per c ~ asking of the accused persons dowry and streedhan was given according to the capacity of the complainant on the festival of Karva Chauth, complainant's daughter Anamika along with appellant and, Anamika's father-in-law and mother-in-law came to their residence. Sufficient articles were given on Karva 0 __; Chauth. On that day, Anamika told the complainant that her husband Pardeep Kumar who was running a shop at Yamuna Nagar in the name and style of New Punjab Tractors. wanted to take her to Yamuna Nagar. He demanded cglour T.V., washing machine, Godrej almirah and a refrigerator. Thereafter E his daughter went to her in-law's place in Village Dhanola, District Sangrur (Punjab). Ten to fifteen days thereafter, - complainant's daughter rang them up from Dhano~that she
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.