LexRAJA LAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAJA LAL SINGH A v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND MAYOS,2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B Penal Code, I 860: S. 304-B/34-Deceasedfound dead due to hanging in her room on the first floor of the building-No evidence to show that brother-in-law and C sister-in-law who were living on the ground floor of the building had hand in the incident which led lo her death-Benefit of doubt given lo them- Conviction set aside. S.304-B-Applicability of-Deceased harassed by husband for not bring D dowry article-Commilled Suicide -S. 304-B is applicable-Husband rightly convicted. S.304-B-Expression 'soon before her death '-Meaning of-Discussed. Prosecution's case was that the deceased was married to the appellant. E After 3 months, she came back to her parents house and told her father PW- 5 that her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law had been harassing her for not bring dowry articles. He assured his daughter that he will fulfill the demand. Within 7 months of marriage, the father of deceased received news of death of his daughter. He rushed to his daughter's house with his sons, where he found the dead body of the deceased lying on a Chauki kept ina room F at the upper floor of the building. On being asked, his son-in-law stated that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. The case was registered against husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law u/ss. 304-8/34 I.P.C. Doctor PW-7 who conducted the post mortem had opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. However, in his cross- examination he stated that it was a case of suicidal death. Trial Court convicted G the accused persons u/ss. 304-B/34 I.P.C. High Court upheld the ordei: of Trial Court. The brother-in-law and his wife filed appeal no. 514/2006 and husband filed appeal No. 513/2006. 105 H !06 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal No. 513/2006 and allowing the appeal No. 514/ 2006, the Court HELD: I. The appellant-husband used to live on the first floor of the building along with his wife, whereas brother-in-law and his wife were living in the ground floor. Admittedly, the deceased was found dead due to hanging, B on the first floor in the room of her husband. There is no evidence to show that the appellant brother-in-law and his wife had any hand in the incident which led to her death, and at any event benefit of doubt has to be given to them, as they were living on the ground floor of the building in question. No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW5 who is the father of the deceased and C PW 3 brother of the deceased, have stated that the deceased told them that dowry was demanded by not only husband, but also the brother-in-law and his wife but it is possible that the names of brother-in-law and his wife has been introduced only to spread the net wide as often happens in cases like 498-A and 394 IPC. (Paras 13 and 14) [110-A-C) D Kamesh Panjiyar@ Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388, relied on. 2. Husband of the deceased llr't:d ·to live with her on the first floor of the building in question. Hence, it was for him to explain how deceased met with her death. She was found hanging by a Sari on a ceiling fan in the very room E where she used to live with her husband. Appellant-husband, however, did not enter into the witness'box to depose in this connection. So far as S, 304-B is concerned it is not relevant whether it is case of homicide or suicide. (Paras 15 and 16( (110-E-G) F Satvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr., (2001) 8 SCC 633, relied on. 3. The essential components of S.304-B are (i) Death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage. (ii) Soon before her death she should have been subjected to cruelty G and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Deceased died about 7 months after her marriage. Also, it has come in evidence that she had been harassed for dowry 10 or 15 days before her death. This has come in the evidence of PW5 and PW3 and there is no reason to disbelieve them. She had earlier also been subjected to harassment on account of dowry when she had gone to her parents' house in August, 2000, as has come in the evidence of ~ H .... ,, """ j_ ..... RAJALALSINGHv.STATEOFJHARKHAND[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.j 107 PWS. Thus, the ingredients ofS. 304-B IPC are satisfied. [Para 17] [110-H; 111-A-B) T. Aruntperunjothi v. St
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.