VIPIN JAISWAL(A-1) versus STATE OF A.P. REP.BY PUB.PROSECUTOR

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 449 · Decided: 13-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 3 S.C.R. 449 
VIPIN JAISWAL(A-1) 
V. 
STATE OF A.P. REP.BY PUB.PROSECUTOR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1431 of 2007) 
MARCH 13, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3048 and 498A - Death of 
married woman -Conviction of appellant-husband ulss.3048 C 
and 498A - Justification - Held: Not justified - Demand, if at 
all made by the appellant on the deceased for purchasing a 
computer to start a business six months after the marriage, 
was not in connection with the marriage and was not really a 
'dowry demand' within the meaning of s.2 of the Dowry D 
Prohibition Act, 1961 - In any case, the prosecution witnesses 
made general allegations of harassment by the appellant 
towards the deceased and did not bring in evidence any 
specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the 
deceased - On the other hand, from the evidence of appellant E 
(DW1), it is clear that while cleaning the house he came 
across a chit (Ext. D19) written in the handwriting of his wife 
and containing her signature - It appears from Ext. D19 that 
the deceased wrote the chit according to her free will saying 
that nobody was responsible for her death and that her 
F 
parents and family members had harassed her husband and 
she was taking the step as she was fed up with her fife because 
of the quarrels that were taking place - Evidence of DW1 
(appellant) and Ext.D19 cast a reasonable doubt on the 
prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to 
G 
harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry -
Since the prosecution was not able to prove beyond 
reasonable doubt the. ingredient of harassment or cruelty, 
neither of the offences u!ss.498A and 3048, !PC has been 
«9 
H 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
A made out by the prosecution - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
s.2. 
The wife of appellant died due to burn injuries. The 
prosecution alleged that ever since her marriage, the 
8 deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture 
by her husband and in-laws and they all brutally 
assaulted her on innumerable occasions for not getting 
sufficient dowry. Charge-sheet was submitted against 
the appellant and his relatives under Sections 498A and 
C 3048 IPC. 
The appellant took the defence that the deceased had 
left behind a suicide note written by her one day before 
her death in which she has stated that she had committed 
suicide not on account of any harassment by the 
D appellant and her family members but due to the 
harassment by her own parents. The Trial Court, 
however, disbelieved the defence and convicted the 
appellant and his other relatives under Sections 3048 and 
498A, IPC holding that the deceased was subjected to 
E torture and harassment by the accused, mainly for the 
reason that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was not given to the 
appellant by the father of the deceased (PW1). In appeal, 
High Court acquitted the two other relatives of the 
appellant (A2 and A3) but maintained the conviction of the 
F appellant under Sections 3048 and 498A, IPC and 
therefore the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The evidence of the father and mother of 
G the deceased, viz. PW1 and PW4 is that the demand of 
Rs.50,000/- by the appellant was made six months after 
the marriage and that too for purchasing a computer to. 
start his own business. It is only with regard to this 
demand of Rs.50,000/- that the Trial Court has recorded 
H a finding of guilt against the appellant for the offence 
VIPIN JAISWAL(A-1) v. STATE OF A.P. REP.BY 
451 
PUB.PROSECUTOR 
under Section 3048, IPC and it is only in relation to this 
A 
demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of a computer to start 
a business made by the appellant six months after the 
marriage that the High Court has also confirmed the 
findings of the Trial Court with regard to guilt of the 
appellant under Section 3048, IPC. Both the Trial Court 
B 
and the High Court failed to appreciate that the demand, 
if at all made by the appellant on the deceased for 
purchasing a computer to start a business six months 
after the marriage, was not in connection with the 
marriage and was not really a 'dowry demand' within the 
C 
meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 
[Para 6] [456-D-H] 
Appasaheb & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 
SCC 721: 2007 (1) SCR 164 - referred to. 
D 
2. In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the 
offences under Sections 3048 and 498A, IPC, t

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