LexSTATE OF U. P. versus SANTOSH KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 106 ~ I A STATE OF U.P. I. v. SANTOSH KUMAR (Criminal Appeal No. 1199 of 2001) B SEPTEMBER 3,2009 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : t· c ss. 302, 304-B, 498-A, and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act-A married woman harassed for dowry and burnt alive-Conviction by trial court u/ss.302134 and 498-A /PC and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Act-Acquittal by High Court holding that charge uls. 304-B against the ac~used having J' D failed, they could not be convicted for other offences-Held: ~ The conclusion of High Court is erroneous and unsustainable in /aw-Even if there is acquittal u/s. 304-B, still conviction u/ s. 498-A can be recorded-Again ambit and scope of ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Act is different from that of ss.304-B and 498- E A /PC-Ingredients of ss.304-B and 498-A /PC-Explained- Ambit and scope oi ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Act-Explained- All the three dying declarations including the one recorded by the Tehsildar/Magistrate clearly established the guilt of accused-No other view except that taken by trial court is F possible and the view taken by High Court is perverse and unsustainable in law-Judgment of High Court set-aside and that of trial court restored as far as sentence imposed on respondent u/s 302 is concerned-Appeal against accused who died pending appeal, abated-Abatement of appeal- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961-ss. 3 and 4-Evidence-Dying G declaration-Minor discrepancies in evidence-Effect of.- Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 136-Appeal against .:t judgment of acquittal passed by High Court-Scope of. The respondent, one of the brothers of the husband H 106 I STATE OF U.P. v. SANTOSH KUMAR 107 ...... of the deceased, along with his uncle and mother, was A prosecuted for commission of offences punishable u/ss. 302/34, 304-8, 498-A IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on the allegations that the accused harassed the bride for dowry and on the day of incident the respondent-accused, on exhortation of other 8 accused, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire causing her death. The trial court convicted and -i sehtenced the respondent u/ss. 302 and 498-A IPC and ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act He was, however, acquitted of the charge u/s 304-8 IPC. The other accused c were oonvicted and sentenced u/s 498 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. They were acquitted of the charges u/s 302/34 and 304-8/34 IPC. On appeal, the High Court ... acquitted all the accused of all the charges. Aggrieved, """ the State filed the appeal. During pendency of the appeal, D two of the respondent-accused died and the appeal as regards them abated. Allowing the appeal as. regards the surviving respondent, the Court HELD : 1.1. The finding of the High Court that when E ,>.. the charge u/s. 304-8 IPC was held to have failed, there was no logic in convicting the accused for offences punishable u/ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as u/s. 498-A IPC, is palpably wrong and F unsustainable in law. The ingredients of s. 498-A IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act are different from the ingredients of s.304-8 IPC. The demand of dowry is an essential ingredient to attract s. 304-8 IPC, whereas u/ s.498-A IPC the demand of dowry is not the basic G "" ingredient of the offence. Therefore, even if there is acquittal u/s. 304-8 IPC, still conviction under section 498A can be recorded under the law. [Para 20, 21 and 37] [116-D-F; 121-F-G] 1.2. On analysis of the s.304-8 IPC, the essential H 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R ~ A ingredients that emerge are : (i) that the accused caused death of a woman; (ii) that the accused was husband, or any relative of the husband of that woman; (iii) that death of such woman, (a) was caused by any burns, or bodily injury, or (b) occurred otherwise than under normal B circumstances; (iv) that such . death was caused within seven years of the marriage of that woman; (v) that soon before her death such woman. was subjected to cruelty, or harassment; (vi) that the accused had subjected such woman to such cruelty or harassment for, or in c connection with any demand for dowry. IPara 32] [119- F-H; 120-A-GJ 1.3. The essential ingredients of s. 498-A IPC are: (i) that there was a married woman; (ii) that such woman was subjected to cruelty; (iii) that such cruelty consisted !' ' .. D of any willful cond
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.