SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 02-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1512-1513 of 2017)
DECEMBER 02, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, K.M. JOSEPH AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.304B – Dowry Death – Poisoning
alleged – Appellants (husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law)
acquitted by trial court – Acquittal set aside by High Court – On
appeal, held: PW1 (father of the victim) admitted that there was no
demand for dowry before or at the time of marriage – Version about
the demand for Rs.10 lakhs by first appellant (husband) is wholly
unacceptable – Further, there is no evidence that the deceased died
of poisoning – Police did not recover any poison from the appellants
or their house – FSL report categorically rules out the presence of
any poison – Prosecution not able to establish that the cause of
death was unnatural – Appellants in their questioning u/s.313 set
up the case of Tuberculosis (TB) – PW5-Doctor opined that the
death could have taken place due to TB, leading to congestion of
internal organs – s.113B not applicable in the present case –
Impugned judgment set aside while that of Sessions Judge is restored
– Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
– ss.378, 386, 313.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.304B – Dowry Death – Ingredients –
Held: A marriage performed within seven years before the death of
wife; death must be unnatural; soon before the death, the deceased
wife must have been at the receiving end of cruelty or harassment,
on account of demand for dowry.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113B – Applicability of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. ANALYSIS
The charge is one under Section 304B. The ingredients of
the offence are well-settled. A marriage performed within seven
848
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 848
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
849
years before the death of the wife. The death must be unnatural.
Soon before the death, the deceased wife must have been at the
receiving end of cruelty or harassment, on account of demand for
dowry. It is described as dowry death. The relatives concerned,
including husband, become liable. Section 113B of the Evidence
Act comes to the rescue of the prosecutor by providing for a
presumption that a person has caused dowry death if, it is shown
that soon before her death, she was subjected by such person for
cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry.
PW1 admitted that there was no demand for dowry before or at
the time of marriage. The marriage took place on 10.12.2009.
The death was on 23.01.2011. Though PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW6
have spoken about harassment on account of dowry, the Sessions
Judge did not find material reliable. The version about the demand
for Rs.10 lakhs is found wholly unacceptable. [Paras 36, 39][873-
D-F; 874-E]
2.1 THE LAW ABOUT POISONING: APPLICATION TO
FACTS
In Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, three tests
came to be reiterated, as necessary to establish in a case of
poisoning- 1) Death took place on account of poisoning, 2) The
accused had the poison in his possession, 3) The accused had an
opportunity to administer the poison. In this case, there is no
evidence at all that the deceased died of poisoning. Secondly,
there is no evidence to show that the appellants had poison in
their possession. Thus, even proceeding on the basis that being
the wife and daughter-in-law who was living with them that the
appellants may have had the opportunity to administer poison,
the other two tests are not satisfied. The police did not recover
any poison from the appellants or their house. The FSL report
categorically rules out the presence of any poison. There is
absolutely no evidence relating to poison in relation to the
deceased. Were it a case of forcible poisoning, by using a
corrosive poison, there would been some marks. There are none.
If it were forcible poisoning by using any kind of poison, there
would be struggle and resistance from the victim. In this regard,
PW1 is to be believed on 23.01.2011 at 9:30, he received a phone
call from his daughter who, asked him to reach Haridwar,
SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
otherwise these people will kill her. Also, in the charge-sheet
the prosecution proposed to prove its case based apart from the
oral evidence the material recovered from the spot containing
the vomiting of the deceased, which was cleaned by the accused.
Howe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.