LexSMT. RAJESHWARI DEVI ETC. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SMT. RAJESHWARI DEVI ETC.
v.
STATE OF U.P.
APRIL 19, 1996
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, .JJ.)
Indian Penal Code, 186(}-Section 302-Death by gun shot injwy in
husband's house--Circianstantial evidence-Husband convicted u/s. 302
/PC-Father-in-law convicted u/s 201 /PC-Acquittal of mother- in-law.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 113 8--lndian Penal Code,
186(}-Sections 3048, 498A--{fnnatura/ Death of deceased in her husband's
hous&----Evidence relating to demand of dow1y and harassment of deceased
on that count-Presumption u/Ss 498A, 3048 !PC and I 138 Evidence Act
which are subsequently enacted not available-Conviction u/S 302/34 /PC of
fatlzer-in-law and 1nother-in-law not sustainable.
The prosecution case was that the deceased was married to accused
S on or about 3.2.1982, she died of a gun shot in,jury in the house of her
husband on 22.11.1982; that a message was sent by the accused to the
parents of the deceased who reside in a different village to inform them
that deceased had committed suicide; that on reaching their house parents
of the deceased were told that the deceased had died instantaneously and
her body had been cremated and that the accused could not give any
proper explanation as to why the cremation could not wait till the arrival
of family of the deceased.
The husband and bis parents were convicted for offence u/S 302/34,
147 & 201 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. They were also sen-
tenced to 2 years and 4 years R.I. u/Ss 147 & 201 lPC respectively. The two
domestic servants were convicted u/S 201 !PC and sentenced to four years'
A
B
c
D
E
F
R.I. The village chowkidar was convicted u/s 202 !PC and sentenced to 6
months R.I. In appeal, the High Court convicted the husband u/s 302 !PC G
and maintained his sentence of life imprisonment. The husband's parent'i
were convicted u/s 302/34 !PC, and the sentence of life imprisonment was
maintained. The sentence u/s 201 was also maintained though their con-
viction u/s 147 wa; set aside. The conviction of two domestic servants had
been maintained. R did not prefer any appeal and served his sentence. The H
579
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
High Court upheld the findings regarding motive for the murd<r of the
deceased while holding that it was found that the deceased was being
harassed by her husband and in-laws for not bringing sufficient dl wry and
P.W. 2, the brother of the deceased who was at the house of the deceased
upto 22.11.1982, the day of the occurrence, had been told by the deceased
B that she was being treated very badly as she had not brought s afficient
dowry and when PW 2 talked to the husband of the deceased, he did not
give a satisfactory reply and said that the day of extermination ol his line
had approached, so saying he picked up the gun and went out to,.ards his
field and thereafter P.W. 2 went back to his house; that P.W. 5 st' ted that
while he was in his field, he heard a gun shot and rushed to the 10use of
C the deceased where he saw the deceased lying injured, her t usband,
•
father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and the servants standing there,
the deceased died shortly thereafter. of gun shot injury an<I he was in-
formed by the servants that on the instigation of his parents, the 'msband
had fired on his wife and injured her; that P.W. 5 saw the two ;ervants
D burning the dead body of the deceased, no pyre was made and 1he dead
body was burnt by sticks when father-in-law and her husband \\ere also
present. The High Court, on the basis of this circumstantial evide'1ce inter
alia convicted the husband, u/s 302 !PC, negativing the theory ol suicide.
It also Convicted the father-in-law and mother-in-law inter alia mtder sec.
302 read with Sec. 34 l.P.C. Hence these appeals.
E
Allowing the appeals partly this Court
HELD : 1.1. The deceased died of a gun shot injury in the house of
her husband. The husband had been seen by P.W. 2, the brother of the
F
deceased with a gun in his hand going to the field and making a s :atement
that his line was about to be extinguished. Relying on this and the evidence
of P.W. S, he was rightly convicted u/S 302 !PC by the High Court. [584-D-E]
G
1.2. The death of the deceased occurred in 1982 prior to the two
amendments of the Indian Penal Code introducing Section 498A and 304B
in the Indian Penal Code and amending the Evidence Act by introducing
Section 113B. Therefore, the presumptions unExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.