STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus RAJENDRA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 08-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 14 S.C.R. 393 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
RAJENDRA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 719 of2010) 
JULY 08, 2014 
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Pena/Code, 1860-ss.306, 304-Band498-Ar/w. s.34 
A 
B 
- Dowry death-Acquittal by trial court- Cpnviction by High 
Court - On appeal, held.' Prosecution successfully proved C 
and established its case u/ss. 498-A and 304-B, hence 
conviction thereunder affinned- Since the case uls. 306 has 
not been proved beyond doubt, conviction thereunder set 
aside. 
EvidenceAct, 1872-s.113-B-Presumption under-
D 
Raising of- Conditions for. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In dowry death cases direct evidence may 
not be available. Such cases may be proved by E 
circumstantial evidence. Section 394-B IPC read with 
113-B of the Evidence Act indicates the rule of 
presumption of dowry death. The expression "soon 
before her death" is used in the substantive Section 304-
B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The 
determination of period which can come within the term 
"soon before" is left to be determined by the Court 
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each 
case. [Paras 24, 27)(405-C-D; 406-B] 
F 
Yashoda and Another v. State of M.P. 2004 (3) 
G 
sec 98 - relied on. 
2. The presumption u/s.113-B of the Evidence Act .• 
with respect to dowry death can be raised only on the 
proof of the following four essential conditions: 1) The 
H 
393 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014) 14 S.C.R.. 
A woman was ·subjected to cruelty or harassment; 2)by 
the husband or his relatives;3) for or in connection with 
any demand for dowry; 4)soon before her death. 
[Para 25][405-D-F] ' 
· 
Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2004 (9) 
B 
SCC 157: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 
1 -
relied 
on. · 
" 
' 
3. In the present-case from the evidence of 
prosecution witnesses it is found that the harassment 
of the deceased was with a ·view to coerce. her to 
C convince her parents to meet demand of dowry. The said 
. willful conduct has driven the deceased to commit the 
suicide or not is a matter of doubt, in absence of specific 
· evidence. Therefore, in the light of Clause (b) of s.498-A 
IPC, while hblding that all the accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty 
D for the offence u/s. 498-A IPC, it is held that the 
prosecution failed to prove that the deceased committed . 
suicide. The accused are, therefore, acquitted for the 
offence u/s.306 r/w 34 IPC. [Para 31)[4~7-E-H] 
· 
4. The prosecution on the basis "of evidence has 
E successfully proved that the deceased. died within·· 7 
· years of her marriage; the death of the deceased is 
caused by burns i.e. nor under normal circumstances. It 
. 
. 
. 
has also been proved that soon before her death, during 
her pregnancy, the deceased was subjected to cruelty 
F and harassment by her husband and relatives of accused 
in· connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, the 
'prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable 
doubt that accused Nos.1 to 6 are guilty for the offence 
u/s.304-B, r/w s. 34 IPC.[Para 32][408-A-C] 
G 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
2004 (3) sec 98 
[2003) 3 Suppl. SCR 1 . 
H 
relied on 
~ 
~ 
., ~ ,r i 
relied on 
Para 24 
Para 25 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAJENDRA& ORS. 
395 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal A 
Appeal No. 719 of 2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2005 of the 
High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in Crl. A. No. 388 of2005. 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No. 720 of2010 
Shankar Chillarge (for Ms. Asha G Nair), Sachin J. Patil, 
Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi,Advs., fortheAppellant. 
Sushil Kumar, Sr. Adv., Aditya Kumar, Sanjay Jain, Ms. 
·Asha G Nair, K. L. Taneja,Advs., forthe Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. These 
appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18th August, 
2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, 
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.388 of 2005. D 
By the impugned judgment the High Court held that unless the 
prosecution proves that death was suicidal and that the 
deceased was treated with cruelty and was harassed by direct 
evidence, the presumption under Section 113-A does not apply 
in the case and acquitted all the accused-respondents from 
E 
the charges under Section 498-A, Section 304-B and Section 
306 IPC all read with Section 34 IPC, thereby reversing the 
finding of the Trial Court. 
2. Respondents - accused No.1, Shivpujan and accused 
No.3, Malti Devi are husband and wife. Accuse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.