LexRAJINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013) 7 S.C.R. 370 RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2007 etc.) JULY 3, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: ss. 304-B, 498-A and 201 read with s.34 - Dowry death - Death of bride in matrimonial home - Cremation. hurried - Conviction of husband u/ss 304-B, 498-A and 201 and of other accused u/s 201134 - Held: Prosecution has proved that the 0 death of the bride occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances - Statements of witnesses are trust-worthy and they stated that the deceased was subjected to harassment by her husband and other accused relatives in connection with demand for dowry just prior to her death - Further, E cremation was hurried without informing the parents of bride - Accused failed to explain about presence of pesticide in the vomiting of deceased -- Therefore, the trial court rightly drew an inference of the guilt of the accused-appellants - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.113-B read with s.106. F The appellants and two other persons were prosecuted for committing the offences punishable u/ss 304-B; 498-A and 201 IPC with s/34 IPC. The prosecution case was that marriage of the appellant (in Crl. A. No: 14 of 2007) with the daughter of PW-2 was solemnized on G 22.4.1992; that on 11.12.1992, the appellant left his wife in her parents' house for one month, when she told that the accused persons had been harassing her for bringing less dowry and she was told to bring Rs.25,000/-; that on 15.1.1993, when PW-3, the brother of the bride, was taking H 370 RAJINOER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 371 her to her in-laws house, PW-2 asked him to convey the A accused persons that some money would be sent by 20.1.1993; that on 24.1.1993, PW-7 came to PW-2 and informed him that his daughter had died on the previous night and had been cremated in the morning of 24.1.1993. PW-2 lodged a report with the police, who took B possession of ashes and bones from crernation ground and sent the same along with the clothes of the deceased for chemical examination. As per the FSL report "Organ Phosphorus Pesticide" was detected on the said clothes and in the vomiting of the deceased. The trial court c convicted the hm~band of the deceased u/s 304-8, 498-A and 201 IPC and the other accused-appellants u/s 201/ 34 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeals of the accused-appellants. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The ingredients necessary for application D of s.304-B IPC and the applicability of s.113-B of the Evidence Act were culled out by this Court in Jaggu Ram's case. In the instant case, the prosecution proved E that the death of the bride occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within a period of 9 months of her marriage i.e. much before seven years. The statements of PW-2 and PW-3 are trust-worthy and they stated that the deceased was subjected to harassment by her F husband and other accused relatives in connection with demand for dowry just prior to her death. The · prosecution having established essential ingredients, it becomes the duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused dowry death. [para 16-17] [379-D; G 380-E-G] State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram (2008)12 SCC 51 - relied on. 1.2 Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve H 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 7 S.C.R. A the burden of prosecution to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but where the prosecution has succeeded to prove the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts and the accused by virtue of special B knowledge regarding such facts fails to offer any explanation then the court can draw a different inference. [para 15] [379-B-C] 1.3 In the instant case, the accused have failed to explain as to why they were in a hurry to cremate the C deceased in the early morning of 24.1.1993 while she died in the mid night of 23/24.1.1993 i.e. within few hours. The village of deceased's parents was not far from the village of the accused but the reason as to why they were not informed about the incident and why the accused did not D wait for them to come was not explained. The accused have also failed to explain the presence of the 'Organo Phosphorus Pesticide' in the vomiting of the deceased, as was noted in the F.S.L. Report. Therefore, the trial court rightly drew an inference of the g
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.