SATBIR SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 182 · Decided: 14-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SATBIR SINGH AND ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 
[H.K. SEMA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201-Dowry death-
Harassment for dowry by in-laws of the deceased on various occasions-
C Deceased sent to her father's home to arrange dowry about JO days before 
the occurrence-Deceased returned to her matrimonial home on request of 
the accused persons-Deceased found dead under suspicious circumstances 
and cremated hurriedly-High Court upheld conviction by trial court-On 
appeal Held, death undisputedly occurred during 7 years of marriage and 
prosecution established ingredients of the offences-Once the prosecution 
D has established ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, the onus lies on the accused 
to rebut the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act-Evidence 
of defence witness did not inspire confidence-Acts of harassment were never 
condoned when the deceased returned to her matrimonial home-Evidence 
Act, 1872-Section 113-B. 
E 
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986-Section 2(h)-Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection) Act, 2000-Section 20-Held, provisions are applicable even to 
cases initiated and pending provided the offender has not completed ; 8 years 
of age as on 1.4.2001. 
The appellants, the in-laws of the deceased, were convicted under 
F Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased 
was being harassed for dowry, before her death. A-1 and A-4 were her 
father-in-law and mother in law. A-2 was her brother-in-law and A-3, her 
husband. As per the prosecution, the accused persons sent the deceased 
to her father's home about IO days before the occurrence to arrange dowry 
G of Rs. 7000 for the purchase of a buffalo. Later, on 11.6.1989 A-3 came 
to the house of PW-4, her father, and requested him to send the deceased 
to her matrimonial home for attending the engagement ceremony of A-2, 
for which he agreed. On the intervening right of 13.4.1989 and 14.6.1989, 
A-2 and four others informed PW-4 that the deceased was seriously ill. 
H 
182 
SATBIRSINGHv. STATEOFHARYANA 
183 
When he reached there he found her dead with blood in her mouth. The A 
accused persons refused to hand over the dead body to PW-4 and hurriedly 
cremated her body, the next morning. The High Court affirmed the order 
of conviction passed by the trial court. Hence this appeal. 
Aj1pellants contended that the evidence of DW-1, the compounder 
of the village doctor, was material for rebuttal of the presumption under B 
Section 113-8 of the Indian Evidence Act; that the deceased condoned all 
acts of harassment, when she returned to her matrimonial home on 
11.6.1989; and that A-2 was entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice 
Act, 1986 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. Undisputedly the death of the deceased occurred during 
seven years of her marriage. At the time of marriage the dowry was paid 
according to the capacity of the complainant. However, subsequent to the 
marriage, the deceased was harassed for not bringing more dowry. Ten D 
days prior to the incident, the deceased had come to the complainant's 
place and stated that her in-laws were demanding Rs. 7,000 as they wanted 
to purchase a buffalo. She had further stated that till she brought the same, 
she would not be allowed to return. She died in intervening period of 13/ 
14.6.1989 with bodily injury occurring otherwise than under normal 
circumstances. The prosecution was able to establish the ingredients as E 
enjoined under Section 304-8 of Indian Penal Code. Once the same was 
established the presumption against the accused began as enjoined under 
Section 113-8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Though a rebuttable 
presumption, the onus lies on the accused against whom the presumption 
lies to discharge it. Once the prosecution has established ingredients of F 
Section 304-8 IPC, the onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption 
under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. [187-8-C-D-E-F] 
State of Karnataka v. M V. Manjunathegowda and Anr., (2003] 2 SCC 
188, relied on 
2.1. The evidence of DW-1 was considered by the trial court as well G 
as by the High Court and rejected, as it did not inspire confidence. The 
case of the appellant was that the deceased died of heart attack and in his 
defence he examined DW-1. Prima facie, the evidence did not inspire 
confidence. DW-1 in his own statement stated that he was a matriculate 
and work

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