LexRAKESH AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 295 RAKESH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1779 of 2009) MARCH 22, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] A 8 Penal Code, 1860 - ss.498A and 302 r/w s.34 - Dowry death - Prosecution of husband and mother-in-Jaw - Conviction by courts below relying on dying declaration of the C deceased - Held: Prosecution case established beyond reasonable doubt - The dying declaration is acceptable in view of the facts of the case - Conviction upheld. \ The appellants-accused were prosecuted u/ss. 498- · 0 A and 302 rlw s. 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that A-1 and A-2, husband and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively, used to harass the deceased for dowry and killed her setting her on fire. Trial court convicted the accused primarily relying on the Dying Declaration of the E deceased. High Court confirmed the conviction. In appeal to this Court the appellants-accused inter alia contended that the Dying Declaration was not reliable and that in view of the. burn injuries on the hands of the accused-husband, it was highly improbable that he set F the deceased on fire. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The materials placed by the G prosecution about the recording of dying declaration, procedure followed, fitness of the deceased to make the statement, the evidence of doctor and the evidence of 295 H 296 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 5 S.C.R. A Magistrate, who recorded the statement, amply prove their case. The statement of the deceased in the form of dying declaration is fully acceptable since on receipt of intimation from the police, the Judicial Magistrate (PW-10) reached the hospital and after satisfying herself through B the statement of the duty doctor that the deceased was conscious and fit to make a statement, recorded her statement in the form of question and answers. In the dying declaration, she had specifically stated that her husband scolded her for not brining money in the c marriage of her sister. He used to demand money from her father. Her in-laws used to harass/tease her for not bringing sufficient dowry and on the relevant date her mother-in-law caught hold of her hands and her husband set her on fire with a match stick after sprinkling kerosene 0 oil. It is also seen from her dying declaration that before she was set on fire, her husband gave beat on her neck with his leg and she was beaten up mercilessly. The claim that there was wrong description of names in the dying declaration and some of the relatives were present E at the time of recording of dying declaration, are not material contradictions which would affect the prosecution case. [Paras 16, 18 and 21) (304-G-H; 305-A- D, H; 360-A, E] 2. The plea - that in view of the burn injuries in the F hands sustained by accused-husband, it was highly impossible that he set the deceased ablaze - is not sustainable. Though the accused-husband took the deceased to the hospital admittedly, he did not try to get any treatment from the doctor for his own alleged burn G injuries. Nothing prevented him from taking treatment on the same day from the same doctor. Admittedly, he did not get treatment till he was arrested on 21.05.1998. [Para 17] (305-0-F] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal H No. 1779 of 2009. I I RAKESH v. STATE OF HARYANA 297 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2006 of the A High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 575-DB of 2001. R.N. Kush, S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellants. Kamal Mohari Gupta, Mohd. Zahid Hussain for the B Respondent. ,;: ... The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SATl'lASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against c the final judgment and order dated 15.05.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 575-DB of 2001 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein and confirmed the judgment on conviction and sentence D dated 27.09.2001 and 28.09.2001 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, Haryana in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1998/2001 holding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of the lntlian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and E sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for one
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.