LexSURESH KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 14 S.C.R. 685
SURESH KUMAR
v
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal Nos.218-219 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 11, 2013
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND MADAN
B. LOKUR, JJ.]
A
B
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3048 and 498A - D.Pwry death -
Death of wife within seven years of marriage -
Under C
unnatural circumstances - Prosecution of husband (appellant)
and mother-in-law of deceased - Acquittal by trial C{)Urt on the
ground that the death was accidental - Acquittal of appellant-
accused reversed and convicted u/s. 3048 and 498A - Held:
Initial burden of proving the death of a woman within seven D
years of marriage in abnormal circumstances in connection
with demand of dowry accompanied by cruelty/harassment,
is on the prosecution - After discharge of initial burden,
reverse onus is put on the accused to prove his innocence
by showing that death was accidental - In the present case,
E
ingredients of s. 3048 have been met - The accused failed
to rebut the presumption uls. 1138 - Conviction confirmed -
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113-8.
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113-B -
Pre~;umption under -
Nature of - Held: Such presumption is mandatory -
The
F
courts have no option but to presume dowry death, unless
such presumption is rebutted by the accused - Penal Code,
1860 - s. 304 B.
Appeal - Against acquittal - Held: Interference with oraer G
of acquittal cannot be a matter of course - But the court can
interfere with such order if there is any jurisdictional error- In
the present case, High Court as appellate court ri{Jhtly
685
H
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 14 S.C.R.
A
interfered with order of trial court which committed
jurisdictional effor.
B
Practice and Procedure - New plea - Held: Plea raised
for the first time before Supreme Cowt, cannot be entertained.
Appellant-accused alongwith his mother was
prosecuted ulss. 3048 and 498A IPC. The prosecution
case was that the accused used to demand dowry from
her wife and also used to threaten and harass her on that
account. On the day of the incident, brother of the
C appellant-accused went to the house of brother of the
deceased (PW4) and informed that the deceased died
having suffered an electronic shock. When PW 4, PW 5
alongwith the Sarpanch of the village went to the
matrimonial house of the deceased, they came to know
D that the deceased had already been cremated. PW-4
lodged FIR alleging that the appellant and his mother
killed the deceased for dowry. Trial Court acquitted both
the accused. High Court reversed the acquittal order of
the appellant-accused and held him guilty ulss. 3048 and
E 498A IPC. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Section 304-8 IPC does not categorize
death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Death caused
F
by bodily injury can, in a given case, be homicidal or
suicidal or accidental. Finally, any death occurring
"otherwise than under normal circumstances" can, in a
given case, be homicidal or suicidal or· accidental.
Therefore, if all the other ingredients of Section 304-8 of
G the IPC are fulfilled, any death (whether homicidal or
suicidal or accidental) and whether caused by burns or
by bodily injury or occurring otherwise than under
normal circumstances shall, as per the legislative
mandate, be called a. "dowry death" and the woman's
H husband or his relative "shall be deemed to have caused
SURESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
687
her death". The Section clearly specifies what constitutes
A
the offence of a dowry death and also identifies the single
offender or multiple offenders who has or have caused
the dowry death. (Para 33) (699-D-Gl
Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (1998) 3 SCC 309:
1998 (1) SCR 746; Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5
SCC 207: 2000 (3) SCR 662; Hira Lal vs. State (Govt. of
NCT), Delhi (2003) 8 sec 80: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734;
Bakshish Ram vs. State of Punjab (2013) 4 SCC 131 - relied
on.
1.2. The evidentiary value of the presumption is stated
B
c
in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act). The
key words in this Section are "shall presume" leaving no
option with a Court but to presume an accused brought
before it of causing a dowry death guilty of the offence.
D
However, the redeeming factor of this provision is that
the presumption is rebuttable. Section 113-B of the Act
enables an accused to prove his innocence and places
a reverse onus of proof on him or her. [Para 34) (699-H;
700-A-B]
E
1.3. The presumptiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.