SATYA PAL versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 745 · Decided: 13-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 4 S.C.R. 745 
SATYA PAL 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007) 
MARCH 13, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3048 and 498A - Prosecution u/ 
A 
B 
ss. 302134 and 3048 - Acquittal by trial Court - Conviction by C 
High Court u/ss. 3048 and 498A - Held: Conviction justified 
- In view of the prosecution evidence, High Court rightly held 
that the deceased was subjected to demand of dowry as well 
as cruelty and harassment in connection with such demand, 
soon before her death - High Court also rightly drew 
D 
presumption u/s.113 8 of Evidence Act that the appel/ant-
accused caused dowry death - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.1138. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Explanation to s. 161 
- Police statement - Omission of a fact or circumstance - The 
E 
question whether the omission amounts to contradiction is a 
question of fact which is to be determined by the Court. 
Appellant-accused, alongwith his other relatives was 
prosecuted u/ss. 302/34, 3048 IPC, for killing his wife. Trial 
court acquitted all the accused of all the charges. High 
Court reversed the acquittal order and convicted the 
appellant u/ss.3048 and 498A IPC. Hence the present 
appeal by the appellant-accused. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court was right in reversing the 
judgment of acquittal against the appellant so far as the 
offences u/ss. 3048 and 498A IPC are concerned. [Para 
10] [752-8] 
745 
F 
G 
H 
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
2. The High Court was right in coming to the 
conclusion on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 
that there was in fact a demand of television, fridge and 
cooler about two months after the earlier demand of 
dowry was met and this subsequent demand was also 
B followed by beatings and harassment so much so that a 
visit had to be made by P.W. 1 to the matrimonial house 
of the deceased to persuade the appellants and his 
family members not to make the demands and soon 
thereafter the deceased died. [Para 7] [750-D-F] 
c 
3. The explanation to Section 161 Cr.P.C. states that 
an omission to state a fact or circumstance in the 
statement made to the pollce may amount to 
contradiction, if the same appears to be significant and 
otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which 
D such omission occurs and whether. any omission 
amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall 
be a question of fact. It was, therefore, for the Court to 
decide whether the omission in the statement of P.W 2 
about the beatings given to the deceased before the 
E police was significant enough for the Court to disbelieve 
that the deceased was beaten In connection with the 
demand for dowry. Considering the evidence of P.W. 1 
and P.W. 2 in Its entirety, the High Court was right In 
coming to the finding that the deceased was not only 
F subjected to a subsequent demand of dowry but also 
subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with 
such demand for dowry soon before her death and that 
the trial court had not taken a correct view on the 
evidence of P.W. 1 and PW 2. [Para BJ [751-A-D] 
G 
H 
4. The High Court had also rightly drawn the 
presumption u/s. 1138 of the Evidence Act that appellant 
had caused the dowry death of the deceased within the 
meaning of Section 3048 IPC and the appellant was 
required to rebut this presumption that he had caused 
SATYA PAL v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 
747 
the dowry death. The appellant did make an attempt to 
A 
rebut this presumption in his statement under Section 
313 Cr.P.C. but he failed to rebut the presumption that it 
is he who had caused dowry death of the deceased 
within the meaning of Section 3048 IPC. [Para 9] [751-E-
F, H; 752-A] 
B 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.03.2007 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal c 
Appeal No. 334-DBA of 1997 and Crl. Revision No. 246 of 
1997. ' 
Shantanu Singh, Niraj Jha, Rakesh Dahiya for the 
Appellant. 
Rajesh Gaur Naseem, Sudhir Bisla, Kamal Mohan Gupta 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. These are appeals against the 
E 
judgment dated 16th March, 2007 of the Division Bench of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 334-
DB/1997 and Criminal Appeal No.246 of 1997. 
2. The facts very briefly are that a First Inform

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