SUDHIR KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 14-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 2 S.C.R. 1 
SUDHIR KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1327 of 2003) 
JANUARY 14, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
PENAL Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
s. 304-B - Dowry death - Death of bride by 95% bum c 
injuries in her matrimonial home in 4 month after marriage -
Husband, in-laws and sisters-in-law of deceased prosecuted 
- Husband convicted i3nd others acquitted - Plea of husband 
that since prosecution . case was disbelieved in respect of 
other accused, presumption u/s 113-8 of Evidence Act stood 0 
rebutted and he was also entitled to acquittal - HELD: 
Prosecution case has been fully proved by oral and medical 
evidence - It is for the defence to dispel the presumption uls 
113-B - It is true that four of the five accused have been 
acquitted and some of them on benefit of doubt - But primary 
·evidence is against the husband - A reading of the evidence E 
shows that it was the husband who had, just a few days before 
the incident, threatened his wife with dire consequences if his 
demand for dowry was not fulfilled - He was seen again 
beating his wife and threatening that if the demands were not 
satisfied the deceased would pay dearly for it - It is true that F 
in a case where the prosecution evidence has been discarded 
with respect to four of the five accused, the presumption uls 
113-B could to some extent be said to be dispelled, but in the 
instant case, on an over view the primary role and the weight 
of the evidence has been on the husband-accused- Evidence G 
Act, 1872 - s.113-8. 
. <. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1327 of 2003. 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201'0] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 7.4.2003 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C~I. Appeal No. 
55-SB of 1990. 
A. Sharan, Bimal Roy Jad, Vikram Rathore, Anurag 
8 
Sharma, Sharmila Upadhyay for the Appellant. 
c 
Kuldip Singh for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
The prosecution story is as under: 
Kamlesh Rani deceased, daughter of PW.3-Tej Ram was 
married to Sudhir Kumar, the appellant herein, on 28th July, 
D 1989 at Maur Mandi, District Bhatinda. At the time of marriage, 
ornaments and cash befitting the status of the families, were 
given in dowry. A month after the marriage, however, the 
appellant and his parents Angoori Lal and Kaushalya Devi and 
sisters Neelam Kumari and Urmila Devi started maltreating 
E 
Kamlesh Rani for having brought insufficient dowry. Sudhir 
Kumar also demanded a scooter for himself and a gold ring 
each for his sisters Neelam and Urmila. The demand was duly 
conveyed by Kamlesh Rani to her parents at Maur Mandi. Tej 
Ram promised to fulfill the demand on which Kamlesh Rani 
F 
returned to her matrimonial home and was immediately 
questioned by her mother-in-law as to the scooter and the gold 
rings. Shim Sain, brother of Kamlesh Rani, however, told them 
that the family was not in a position to fulfill the demand on 
account of financial difficulties. He, however, returned to Maur 
Mandi after leaving Kamlesh Rani in the matrimonial home. 
G About 10 days prior to the incident Ramji Das-PW.2, Tej Ram's 
younger brother, came to Maur Mandi and told Tej Ram that the 
accused had given slaps to Kamlesh Rani in his presence on 
which he had promised that the demand for a scooter and gold 
. rings would be fulfilled within a few days. Sudhir Kumar also 
H · came to Maur Mandi and once again reiterated the demands 
SUDHIR KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
3 
to his father-in-law failing which he threatened dire A 
consequences for Kamlesh Rani. On 30th November, 1989, 
Bhim Sain went to the house of the accused and found the 
outer gate shut. On persistent ringing of the bell, Angoori Lal 
came out but moved away and when Bhim Sain entered the 
house he noticed Kamlesh Rani's dead body lying in the latrine. 
B 
Shim Sain immediately came to the house of his uncle Ramji 
Das PW.2, and the two then went to the police station where 
the former lodged the report Exh. PD on the basis of which an 
FIR was registered. Sub-Inspector Santokh Singh thereupon 
reached the place of incident and made the necessary c 
inquiries. On completion of the investigation a challan was duly 
presented against Angoori Lal, Kaushalya Devi and Neelam 
and Urmila for an offence punishable under Sections 302/34 
of the IPC and the matter was brought for trial to the Court of 
Sessions. The Court of Sessions, however, char
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.