LexRAJINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 689
RAJINDER KUMAR
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 799 of 2011)
JANUARY 14, 2015
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
A
B
Penal Code, 1860: s. 304-B - Dowry death - Brothers of
the deceased-woman deposed that the deceased was
C
harassed on account of dowry - All the ingredients of s. 304-
B were proved - Conviction uls. 304-B, therefore, upheld.
Crime against woman: Dowry demand - Demand of
dowry is made within the four corners of the house -
0
Statement of family members of the deceased-woman cannot
be discarded on the ground that they are relatives and are
interested witnesses, till a contradiction is shown in their
deposition or cross examination - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-
B.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
F
HELD: 1. In normal circumstances, in the Indian
Society demand for dowry or harassment for the same
takes place within four corners of the house. Even the
parents or relatives of the girl will not be aware of these,
unless they are informed either by the girl herself or
demand is made directly to them. The Police Officials or
others cannot depose anything about the harassment in
connection with demand of dowry in the absence of any
G
complaint or statement made by witness u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Seldom, the villagers-neighbours may come to know of
the same. In this background, statement of family
members of the deceased-lady cannot be discarded on
689
H
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 1 S.C.R.
A the ground that they are relatives and are interested
witnesses, till a contradiction is shown in their deposition
or cross-examination. [Para 6] [694-D-F]
2. PW-13 has corroborated the statement made by
8 the complainant-PW-7. No inconsistency is found in their
statements. Defence also could not make out anything to
disprove the same during their cross-examinations. From
the statements of the complainant-PW-7 and PW-13, the
deceased had been harassed on account of demand of
C dowry soon before her death. [Para 8] [695-E-F]
3. In the instant case, the death of the deceased
occurred within seven years of her marriage. Her death
was not under normal circumstances. Statements of the
complainant-PW-7 and PW-13 were specific about the
D harassment of the deceased by the accused in
connection with the demand of dowry. It was also evident
from the evidence on record that she was meted out with
such harassment soon before her death. The
prosecution was successful in proving the ingredients of
E Section 304-8 IPC. The trial court rightly presumed that
the accused has caused the dowry death of the victim
and the High Court rightly upheld the conviction and
sentence. [Paras 12 and 13] [699-D-G]
F
G
Kaliaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 9 SCC 157:
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1; Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of
NCT}, Delhi (2003) 8 sec 80: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734 -
relied on.
Case Law Reference:
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1
Relied on
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734 Relied on
Para 9
Para 9
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
H No. 799 of 2011.
RAJINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
691
From the Judgment & Or~rdated 01.09.2010 of the High
A
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No.
238-SB of 2002.
D.P. Singh, Sonam Gupta, Rajkiran Vats, Vallari
Bhardwaj, Sanjay Jain for the Appellant.
Manjit Singh, AAG, Nupur Choudhary, Vevekta Singh,
Akshay Vasishtha, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This appeal
C
is directed against the judgment dated 1st September, 2010
passed by the High Court of Punjab & f.+aryana, Chandigarh in
Criminal Appeal No.238-SB of 2002 alongwith another case.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the
appeal preferred by the accused-appellant and affirmed the
D
order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court u/s
304B of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).
2. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court
is as follows:
E
Raj Rani, youngest sister of complainant Ganpat Rai was
married with accused Rajinder Kumar on 10th May, 1996 as
per Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, the complainant had
given handsome dowry and spent a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-.
When Raj Rani went to her in-laws second time, her husband-
Rajinder, mother-in-law Darshna Devi, sisters-in-law Murti and
Chirya and brother-in-law Binder started taunting and harassing
her. On getting inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.