STATE OF HARYANA versus ANGOORI DEVI & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 1041 · Decided: 13-06-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1041
STATE OF HARYANA
v.
ANGOORI DEVI & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.1801 of 2013)
JUNE 13, 2019
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 498-A r/w 304B – Dowry death – Death
of victim due to burn injuries within 7 years of marriage, otherwise
than under normal circumstances – Conviction u/s. 498A r/w 304B
– However, set aside by the High Court – Interference with – Held:
Not called for – High Court rightly found that the evidence of the
complainant-father of the victim did not show any proximate
connection between the demand of dowry and the act of cruelty of
harassment and or the death – Prosecution was unable to prove
that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before
her death in connection with any demand for dowry – Thus, the
evidence being weak, was not sufficient to convict the respondents.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Considering the evidence, the High Court did not
find the evidence strong enough to hold the respondents guilty.
To attract Section 304B of the Penal Code, the prosecution has
to establish that soon before the death the deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand
for dowry. The High Court rightly found that the evidence did
not show any proximate connection between the demand of dowry
and the act of cruelty of harassment and or the death. The
prosecution has not been able to prove that the victim was
subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in
connection with any demand for dowry. Under Section 304B, the
prosecution cannot escape from discharging its burden of proving
that the harassment or cruelty was related to demand for dowry
soon before death. The High Court has been swayed by the fact
that the evidence of the complainant-father of the victim, did not
evince direct knowledge of demand of dowry. The judgment and
order under appeal is not liable to be interfered with. [Para 15-
17] [1044-F-H; 1045-A-B]
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 1041
     1041
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1042
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1801 of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2012 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.984-SB of
1998
Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv. for the Appellant.
Sudhir Naagar, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. This appeal filed by the State of Haryana is against a judgment
and order dated 3.5.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowing the appeal filed by the
respondents, reversing the judgment of conviction passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajhar convicting the respondents under
Sections 498A read with Section 304B of the Indian Penal code and
acquitting the respondents.
2. The victim (Babli) and her sister (Neeru) were married to two
brothers, Kartar (Respondent No.3) and Pawan, sons of Smt. Angoori
Devi  (Respondent No.1) and Akhey Ram (Respondent No.2).  After 3
½ years of marriage the victim, wife of Kartar Singh (Respondent No.3)
died of burn injuries.
3. The victim’s father (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’)
lodged an FIR, pursuant to which Sessions Crime No. 9 of 29.3.1996
was commenced.     It was alleged that about 1 & ¼ years ago when his
daughter Babli was pregnant, her in-laws had asked her to leave the
house and return only if she brought Rs.60,000/-.
4. It is alleged that the victim informed her parents about this
demand and she started living with her parents.  She gave birth to a
daughter, after which she stayed with her parents for 5 to 6 months.
Thereafter, the complainant requested the accused to take the victim
back.   It is stated that the victim has lived with her in-laws for about 20
days, after which she was thrown out from her matrimonial home.    Her
mother-in-law (Respondent No. 1) and father-in-law (Respondent No.
2) demanded gold ring and a chain.   It is stated that a village Panchayat
was convened after which Babli was sent to her in-laws house on
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1043
29.10.1995. On 3.12.1995, the complainant came to know about the
death of the victim.  He came to know that the victim had been burnt to
death.  He went to the spot and saw the dead body.
5. According to the complaint, since the victim had died due to
torture and beating by her in-laws to press their demand for dowry, the
matter was reported to the Sadar Police Station, Bahadurgarh.
Inve

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