Supreme Court of India
PRADEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 436
- Decided
- 31 March 2009
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside for lack of sufficient evidence, while the conviction under Section 3048 IPC is upheld.
Summary
The appellant, Pardeep Kumar, was convicted of dowry harassment (s.498A IPC), dowry death (s.3048 IPC) and murder (s.302 IPC) after his wife died from burns allegedly caused by a gas cylinder. The trial and High Courts upheld all three convictions, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder and ten years for dowry death. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved the element of murder beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the sole evidence was that the couple lived in the same house. The Court held that such evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction under s.302 IPC, but the ingredients of s.3048 IPC were satisfied. Consequently, the murder conviction was set aside and the ten‑year custodial sentence for dowry death was affirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for murder.
- Whether the elements of Section 3048 of the IPC (dowry death) were established against the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 3048, s. 498A
Subjects
dowry deathmurderIPC Section 302IPC Section 3048IPC Section 498Aevidenceconvictionappeal
Judgment
(2009) 5 S.C.R. 297
PRADEEP KUMAR A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2006)
MARCH 31, 2009
.I B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 :
s.3048 and s.498-A - Essential ingredients- Deceased
c
harassed by husband on account of dowry demand ....
Conviction under s.3048, s.498-A and s.302 - Affirmed by
High Court - Held : On facts, evidence adduced by
prosecution to substantiate the a/legation of commission of
offence under s.302 was that accused and deceased stayed D
in the same house - That was not sufficient to-hold the
accused guilty for offence under s.302 - However accusation
relating to s~048 satisfied - Custodial sentence of 10 years
would meet ends of justice.
E
Prosecution case was that appellant was harassing
his wife for bringing dowry items. On the fateful day, she
was found dead. Trial Court convicted appellant and the
co-accused guilty under s.3048 and s.498A IPC.
Appellant was separately also convicted under s.302 IPC F
and awarded life imprisonment. High Court directed
acquittal of the co-accused persons but upheld the
conviction and sentence of appellant. Hence the present
appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court G
HELD: It is undisputed that the marriage took place
on 9.10.1996 and the date of occurrence was 25.1.1997.
The co-accused persons were the father and the brother
297 H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A of the appellant. The only evidence adduced by the
prosecution to substantiate the allegation of commission
of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was that the
accused and the deceased stayed in the same house.
That was not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for
-
8 offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on the facts
of the case. However, the accusations related to Section \
3048 IPC were satisfied. Therefore while setting aside the
conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC,
the conviction, so far as it related to Section 3048 IPC is
C upheld. Custodial sentence of ten years would meet the
ends of justice. [Paras 6 and 8) [301-C-D; 302-C]
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 516 of 2006.
0 From the Judgment & Order dated 07.03.2005 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing in
Criminal Appeal No. 740-DB of 2002.
Nagendra Rai, Keshav Mohan, W. Gilani and T. Singh (for
Ejaz Maqbool) for the Appellant.
E
T.V. George for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
F to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence
punishable under Sections 302 and 304(8) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life for the first offence but no
G separate sentence was imposed for the second offence.
2. Appellant alongwith two others faced trial. Each was
charged for having committed offences punishable under
Section 304(C::) IPC and Section 498A IPC. Appellant alone
H
PRADEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 299
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
was separately charged for offence punishable under Section A
302 IPC.
3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as
follows:
j
Kewal Krishan (PW 4) is the complainant. He is a resident B
of Ambala City. He is the Directo~ of G.G. Flour Mills. He had
four daughters and two sons. Marriage of his eldest daughter
Suman Rani alias Anamika (hereinafter referred to as the
'deceased') was solemnized with appellant Pardeep Kumar
alias Raju on 19.10.1996 in Laxmi Palace at Patiala. As per c
~ asking of the accused persons dowry and streedhan was given
according to the capacity of the complainant on the festival of
Karva Chauth, complainant's daughter Anamika along with
appellant and, Anamika's father-in-law and mother-in-law came
to their residence. Sufficient articles were given on Karva 0
__;
Chauth. On that day, Anamika told the complainant that her
husband Pardeep Kumar who was running a shop at Yamuna
Nagar in the name and style of New Punjab Tractors. wanted
to take her to Yamuna Nagar. He demanded cglour T.V.,
washing machine, Godrej almirah and a refrigerator. Thereafter E
his daughter went to her in-law's place in Village Dhanola,
- District Sangrur (Punjab). Ten to fifteen days thereafter,
complainant's daughter rang them up from Dhano~that she
along with her husband were shifting to Yamuna Nagar and the
articles demanded should be sent to her at Yamuna Nagar.
F
Complainant Kewal Krishan along with Mohinder Pal son of
Bachan Lal resident of Ambala City came to Yamuna Nagar.
They purchased colourT.V., washing machine, Godrej alrnirah
and a refrigerator and handed them over to the appellant in hili
house. Complainant's wife was operated upon at Ambala for
some ailment. Anamika came to see her mother. Anamika dig G
not look well. Complainant Kewal Krishan enquired about her
health. Anamika stated that her husband, father-in-law and
brother-in-law Parveen Kumar were threatening that if she
wanted to remain alive, she should get Rs.2 lacs from her father,
H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A as they wanted to expand their business at Yamuna Nagar. This
demand was met and complainant gave Rs.50,000/- and
requested for some time so that he will pay the remaining
amount after arranging for it. This amount was given about a
month prior to the death of Anamika. About 15 days before her
death, Anamika made a telephone call to the complainant that
B
her father-in-law Prem Nath had told her husband Pardeep \
Kumar that if Anamika did not arrange for the remaining
amount, she should be eliminated, he would arrange for
everything and perform his second marriage. Again on
23.1.1997, complainant's daughter gave a telephonic call to the
c complainant, that if 'the remaining amount was not arranged
~
within 2/3 days, she would be eliminated.
On 25.1.1997 at about 9.30 p.m., Anil Kumar (PW-3) gave
a telephonic call to the complainant that Anamika had got burnt
D by a gas cylinder. Complainant made a telephonic call to his .__
brother Suresh Pal and his father Rameshwar Dass at Cheeka
to reach Ambala. On their arrival from Cheeka, complainant
along with them left for the house of his daughter at Yamuna
Nagar. On reaching there, he saw his daughter lying dead on
E a double-bed. Besides her were lying a gas-cylinder, match-
sticks and halt burnt papers.
Investigation
-....;:
was undertaken and on completion thereof,
chargesheet was filed. -
F As accused persons abjured guilt, trial was held. ,
In order to further the accusations fifteen witnesses were
examined. The trial court found the appellants and the co-
accused persons guilty. By the impugned judgment High Court
G directed acquittal of the co-accused persons Prem Nath and
Parveen Kumar, but upheld the conviction and sentence of
appellant as aforenoted.
The trial court and the High Court placed reliance on the
evidence of PWs 2, 3 & 4.
H
PRADEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 301
~ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant A
submitted that there was no evidence of the appellant having
committed offences as alleged. There is no direct evidence to
hold that the appellant has committed murder of the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
supported the judgment of the High Court confirming that of the B
trial court.
6. It is undisputed that the marriage took place on
9.10.1996 and the date of occurrence is 25.1.1997. The co-
accused persons were the father and the brother of the c
appellant. The only evidence adduced by the prosecution to
substantiate the allegation of commission of offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC is that the accused and the deceased
_..J
stayed in the same house. That according to us is not sufficient
to hold the appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section D
302 IPC on the facts of the present case. However, the
accusations related to Section 304 B IPC are satisfied.
7. Section 304 B IPC reads as follows:
"3048. Dowry Death - (1) Where the death of a woman E
is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any F
demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry
death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
have caused her death."
5. The necessary ingredients of Section 304 B IPC are as
G
follows:
(1) The death of the woman was caused due to bums,
bodily injuries or due to unnatural circumstances.
H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
I
A (2) The death should be within seven years of
marriage.
(3) It is shown that soon before death victim was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband
or any relative of the husband.
B
(4) The cruelty or harassment was for or in connection
with any demand for dowry.
8. Therefore while setting aside the conviction for offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC, we uphold the conviction,
c so far as it relates to Section 304 B IPC. Custodial sentence
of ten years would meet the ends of justice. The appeal is
allowed to the aforesaid extent.
D.G. Appeal partly allowed. ',._
D
-
., >'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "dowry death"Sign in to search