LexRAJESH BHATNAGAR versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 895
RAJESH BHATNAGAR
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2010)
MAY 10, 2012
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.)
A
B
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-B - Dowry death - Prosecution
case that husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law of a
woman burnt her to death after pouring kerosene on her, as
C
she and her parents failed to satisfy their demands of dowry
- Courts below convicted all the three accused uls.304-8 /PC
- Appeals by husband and brother-in-law before Supreme
Court - Held: PW2, mother of the deceased, deposed that
demand of dowry in relation to various items persisted right
D
from date of engagement, uptil the death of deceased -
Statement of PW2 corroborated by PW1, an uncle of the
deceased - Definite ocular, expert and documentary evidence
to show that deceased died an unnatural death, she was
subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment, there was demand of E
dowry of specific items like refrigerator, television and cooler
and she died within seven years of her marriage - Thus,
ingredients of s.304-8 fully satisfied - Projection by defence
that deceased had died because of an accident of stove fire
while cooking the food cannot be accepted - If accused-
F
. husband had attempted to save the deceased, as claimed by
him, then he would have suffered some bum injuries - But not
even a single bum injury found on his body - Accused-
husband suffered bruises or minor cuts which one could suffer
only if he was struggling or fighting with another person -
G
Absence of any cooking material in the kitchen also belie the
stand of this accused - An accused who raises a false plea
before the Court would normally earn the criticism of the Court
leading to adverse inference - Furthermore, the conduct of the
895
H
896
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A accused prior to and immediately after the occurrence clearly
shows that they were not innocent - Otherwise, there was no
occasion for them to abscond after the body of the deceased
was handed over to her relations - Circumstances consistent
only with hypothesis that the accused had killed the deceased
B by setting her on fire - Clearly accused not entitled to any
benefit, much less acquittal - No merit in the appeals.
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-8 - Dowry death - Life
imprisonment - Justification - Held: There were no mitigating
circumstances in favour of the accused in the instant case -
C Offence of s.304-8 was proved- Manner in which the offence
was committed was found to be brutal - It had been committed
for satisfaction of dowry demands, particularly, for material
goods like television or cooler - Furthermore the accused took
up a false defence before the Court to claim that it was a case
D of an accidental death and not that of dowry death - In the
circumstances, Court normally would not exercise its judicial
discretion in favour of the accused by awarding lesser
sentence than life imprisonment.
E
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-8 - Ingredients of - Stated -
Held: The requirement of s.304-8 is that the death of a woman
be caused by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than in normal
circumstances, within seven years of her marriage - Further,
it should be shown that soon before her death, she was
F subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or her
husband's family or relatives and thirdly, that such
harassment should be in relation to a demand for dowry -
Once these three ingredients are satisfied, her death shall be
treated as a 'dowry death' and once a 'dowry death' occurs,
such husband or relative shall be presumed to have caused
G her death - Thus, by fiction of law, the husband or relative
would be presumed to have committed the offence of dowry
death rendering them liable for punishment unless the
presumption is rebutted - It is not only a presumption of law
in relation to a death but also a deemed liability fastened
H upon the husband/relative by operation of law.
RAJESH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 897
The prosecution case was that the husband ('M'),
A
brother-in-law ('R') and mother-in-law of a woman burnt
her to death after pouring kerosene on her, as she and
her parents failed to satisfy their demands of dowry. The
trial court held all the three accused guilty under Section
304-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo life
B
imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the conviction
and sentence. 'i'lli' and 'R' preferred the instant appeals
contendingExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.