advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Sec. 304 B of I.P.C.- Dowry Death - "SOON BEFORE THE DEATH " - whether the remaining two ingredients are satisfied looking into the evidence on record. The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and not specific. No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accused-Manohar Lal. Her statement is not reliable and not trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made - none of the witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed “soon before her death” for or in connection with demand of dowry. The accused appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC but the Trial Court has not convicted the accused under Section 498-A. In this background, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused harassed the deceased soon before her death for or in connection with a demand of dowry.= MANOHAR LAL … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT= 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41716

Sec. 304 B of I.P.C.- Dowry Death - "SOON BEFORE THE DEATH " - whether the remaining two ingredients  are  satisfied  looking  into the evidence on record. The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and not specific.  No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty  or  harassment made by the accused-Manohar Lal. Her  statement  is  not  reliable  and  not trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made - none  of  the witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed “soon  before her death” for or in connection with demand of dowry. The accused  appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC but  the  Trial  Court has not convicted the accused under Section 498-A. In  this  background,  we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to  prove  that the  accused  harassed  the  deceased  soon  before  her  death  for  or  in connection with a demand of dowry.=

22.   For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment  passed  by  the  Trial  Court
dated 26th August, 1994 as upheld by the High  Court  by  impugned  judgment
dated 26th March, 2007, cannot be upheld.  


The  Trial  Court  after  hearing  the  parties  and   on
appreciation of evidence by the  judgment dated 25th August, 1994  convicted
the appellant for  the  offence  punishable  under  Section  304B  IPC   and
sentenced him to  undergo RI for seven years.  The rest of the accused  i.e.
his brothers Krishan Lal,  Harbans  Lal,  his  father  Gopal  Dass,   mother
Shanti and wife of the brother Smt.  Champa  were  acquitted  by  the  Trial
Court on the ground  that they were all residing separately at a  far  place
from the place of occurrence where deceased was living with the appellant.=

“soon before”  is  an  expression  which  permits  of  elasticity,  and
therefore the proximity test has to be applied keeping  in  view  the  facts
and circumstances of each case. The facts  must  show  the  existence  of  a
proximate live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand  and
the death of the victim.”

20.   In the present case, from the statement of PW.1 it  appears  that  
the
death took place within seven years of marriage. 
Admittedly,  death  of  the
deceased was due to burning i.e. not in normal  circumstances.  
We  have  to
see now whether the remaining two ingredients  are  satisfied  looking  into
the evidence on record.
21.   The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and not specific.  
No
specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty  or  harassment
made by the accused-Manohar Lal. 
Her  statement  is  not  reliable  and  not
trustworthy. 
Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made - none  of  the
witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed “soon  before
her death” for or in connection with demand of dowry. 
The accused  appellant
was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC but  the  Trial  Court
has not convicted the accused under Section 498-A. 
In  this  background,  we
are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to  prove  that
the  accused  harassed  the  deceased  soon  before  her  death  for  or  in
connection with a demand of dowry.
22.   For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment  passed  by  the  Trial  Court
dated 26th August, 1994 as upheld by the High  Court  by  impugned  judgment
dated 26th March, 2007, cannot be upheld.  They are accordingly  set  aside.
The accused-Manohar Lal is acquitted from  the  charge  under  Section  304B
IPC. The appeal is allowed.  Bail Bonds, if any, stand discharged.

2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41716


                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1188 OF 2009

MANOHAR LAL                                              … APPELLANT
                             VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA                                   …RESPONDENT


                               J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
      This appeal is directed against the judgment dated  26th  March,  2007
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  Criminal
Appeal No.529-SB of 1994. By the impugned judgment the High Court  dismissed
the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence  of  the  appellant  under
Section 304B IPC for which he stands  sentenced  to  undergo  RI  for  seven
years.

2.    The case of the prosecution is that  Phullan  @  Darshana,  (deceased)
was married to the accused-Manohar Lal about 5  years  prior  to  her  death
which took place on 27th August, 1991.  She was subjected to harassment  for
dowry and finally she died on account of burn  injuries.  Raj  Rani  (PW-1),
mother of the deceased  on  learning  about  the  incident,  went  to  Civil
Hospital and found the victim dead.  Thereafter she made statement  (Exh.PD)
before the Police at 12.05 P.M. on 28th August, 1991, on the basis of  which
FIR was registered. Apart from the  appellant,  his  brothers  Krishan  Lal,
Harbans Lal, his father Gopal Dass, mother Shanti and wife  of  the  brother
Smt. Champa were also made accused.
 ASI Surat Kant (PW.9) investigated the case  and  recorded  the  D.D.R.-Ex.
P.M. on the statement of Hans Raj(PW.8) and Sat Pal. He then  alongwith  the
above-said persons went  to  the  house  where  the  death  took  place  and
prepared the inquest report -Ex.P.H./1.  He took into  possession  one  pipi
-Ex. P.7, steel bowl -Ex. P-8, burnt match  sticks  Ex.P.9  to  Ex.P.11  and
half burnt piece of cloth alongwith some  cash.  .After  sealing  the   same
into separate parcels with the seal of  SK,  vide  recovery  memo  Ex.  P.N.
attested by PWs  site plan-Ex.P.O. was also prepared  by  him  with  correct
marginal notes. Photographs of the dead  body  were  also  taken  by  Swaran
Kumar (PW.7).  The dead  body  was  sent  to  the  Civil  Hospital,  through
constable Krishan Lal, for post-mortem examination. On  the  next  day,  Raj
Rani(PW.1)  made her statement -Ex.P.D. on which  endorsement  -Ex.PD/1  was
made and on the  basis of which  formal FIR -Ex.P.D./2 was recorded by  ASI-
 Ram Krishna. Krishan Lal,  Constable  produced before him  one pair of  ear
rings of gold which were made into a parcel and sealed with   the  seal   SK
and  taken into possession vide recovery  memo  Ex.P.P..  The  accused  were
arrested on 30th August, 1991 and dowry articles  were  recovered  and  were
taken into possession vide memo Ex.P.O.  Complainant-Raj  Rani  (PW.1)  also
produced before him the list of Kanayadan Mark A. After  completion  of  the
investigation, all the  accused  were  charge-sheeted  for  offence    under
Section 498-A /34 IPC and Section 304B/34 IPC, to which the accused  pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
3.    The prosecution examined  altogether  nine  witnesses  and  placed  on
record the documentary  evidence.  Defence  also  produced  Ram  Prakash  as
defence  witness.  The  Trial  Court  after  hearing  the  parties  and   on
appreciation of evidence by the  judgment dated 25th August, 1994  convicted
the appellant for  the  offence  punishable  under  Section  304B  IPC   and
sentenced him to  undergo RI for seven years.  The rest of the accused  i.e.
his brothers Krishan Lal,  Harbans  Lal,  his  father  Gopal  Dass,   mother
Shanti and wife of the brother Smt.  Champa  were  acquitted  by  the  Trial
Court on the ground  that they were all residing separately at a  far  place
from the place of occurrence where deceased was living with the appellant.
4.    Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:
(a)   There was inordinate delay of twenty hours in lodging FIR.
(b)   The prosecution failed to prove that  accused  harassed  the  deceased
‘soon before the death’ for or in connection with the demand of dowry.
(c)   Satpal, son of Bodha Ram and Puran Chand  in  their  statements  under
Section 174 Cr.P.C. did not say anything about cruelty on account of  demand
of dowry.
(d)   The accused Manohar Lal married with Darshana @  Phoolan  eight  years
prior to her death.  Therefore,  provisions  of  Section  304B  IPC  is  not
attracted in  this case.

5.    Raj Rani (PW.1), mother of  the  deceased-  Darshana  @Phullan  stated
that the accused married her daughter about five  years  back.  The  accused
used to harass her daughter on account of   inadequacy of dowry and used  to
make demands for cash.    According to PW-1, the accused made  a  demand  of
Rs. 10,000/-   which she could not meet.  All the accused  persons  used  to
give beatings to Darshana @ Phullan and she was pressurized  to  bring  more
items of dowry while sufficient dowry was given to the accused at  the  time
of marriage. Initially for about eight days, the accused kept  her  daughter
nicely but thereafter she used to  be harassed and  beaten  by  the  accused
repeatedly. During the life time of father of the deceased, he used to  meet
the dowry demands of the appellant. The deceased used to complain  that  her
husband was not allowing her to stay in the  matrimonial  home  unless  some
payments were made and the complainant(PW.1) had been paying her  money  and
used to sent her back to the matrimonial house by  meeting  the  demands  of
the appellant.

6.    One day prior to the last Rakhi festival, Jindu  Ram-father-in-law  of
PW.1 went to the house of in-laws of Darshana@Phullan to  meet  her  and  on
his return, Jindu Ram (father-in-law of PW.1) informed her that  Darshana  @
Phullan told that she was beaten by the accused after taking liquor  and  it
was not possible for her to live in the matrimonial house. This  information
was given to PW.1 by her father-in-law in presence  of  her  maternal  uncle
Devi Lal.
7.    She further stated that about 8-9 months  after  the  rakhi  festival,
her daughter-Darshana @ Phullan died. She had been  killed  by  her-in-laws.
She then came to Yamuna Nagar and saw the dead body of her  daughter  having
external injuries on her dead person which appeared to have been  caused  on
being strangulated. Policed recorded the statement of PW.1  and  took  thumb
impression which was marked as Ext.PD. The above statement is not  supported
by any evidence and contradictory to post mortem report,  which  shows  that
the death was due to shock resulting from burns.
8.    During the cross-examination, she stated that she made  the  statement
before the police that till the death of her husband,  he  was  meeting  the
demands of the accused through her daughter  and  used  to  give  money  and
other articles. During the cross-examination, she further  stated  that  she
was informed by Jindu, her father-in-law that the deceased was being  beaten
by her husband after consuming liquor and that she wanted the matter  to  be
settled once for all. When confronted  with  the  statement-EX.P.D.  it  was
found that no such statement was given  before  the  police.  Her  statement
that her maternal uncle was also present, when confronted with  Ex.P.D.,  it
was not found recorded. Jindu, father-in-law of PW.1 also  did  not  support
the   case of the   prosecution.  Therefore, he was declared hostile.

9.    PW.5 -Smt. Usha Rani, neighbor of the deceased also  did  not  support
the story of the prosecution. Therefore, she was also declared hostile.
10.   PW.3 -Dr.N.K.Garg had conducted post-mortem examination  of  deceased-
Darshana @Phullan on 28th August, 1991 at  12.30P.M.   Dr.  A.K.  Gupta  was
also present with PW.3. Carbon copy of  post-mortem  report  indicates  that
death was due to shock resulting from burns.  PW.4  -Om  Parkash,  draftsman
had prepared the site plan -Ex.P.J. of the place of occurrence.

11.   PW.5-Usha  Rani  as  stated  above,  informed  that  Manohar  Lal  was
residing with his wife-Darshana @ Phullan and she did not know how deceased-
Darshana @ Phullan was treated by her husband.   In  her  cross-examination,
she stated that when she asked, the  deceased  told  her  that  husband  had
beaten her.  But she did not state the specific date of the  incident.  PW.5
was also declared hostile.
12.   PW.6-Ram Mehar Singh, Constable  tendered  his  affidavit  Ex.P.M.  in
evidence. PW.7-Sarwan Kumar- Photographer went  to  the  house  of  accused-
Manohar Lal and took three photographs- Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and  the  positives
are Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6.  PW.8-Hans Raj alongwith Sat Pal saw smoke coming  out
from the house of Manohar Lal. They went there and saw  that  one  girl  was
lying burning.  They went to police post  and  lodged  report  Ex.P.M.  Then
they came back with the police and were asked by the police  to  go  to  the
village Antawa to inform the parents of the  accused  that  their  Bahu  had
died.  Then they went there and informed   accordingly.
13.   PW.9-ASI Surat Kant, Investigating Officer supported  the  prosecution
story and submitted the report of FSL as evidence Ex.P.R.
14.   After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused  were  examined
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on all the material particulars appearing  against
them. Accused-Manohar Lal  admitted  his  marriage  with  the  deceased.  He
denied the other allegations against him. He took specific plea that he  had
separated from his parents just after the marriage and was living at  Yamuna
Nagar. He pleaded innocence and stated that for the last 4 or  5  years,  he
was working with Prakash Transport as driver and  was  living  happily  with
his wife. A daughter was also born out of their wedlock. He never  made  any
demand of dowry and never maltreated the deceased- Darshana  @  Phullan.  He
also stated that his wife-deceased Darshana @ Phullan got her cousin  sister
Santosh engaged  with  his  brother  Kishan  about  2  years  prior  to  the
incident. About 2 ½ months before  the  incident,  his  brother  refused  to
accept the proposal of relationship due to which relations between  his  in-
laws and his parents became strained.  They  stopped  visiting  his  parents
and  his  parents  also  stopped  visiting  his  in-laws.  On  the  day   of
occurrence, he was away and on return in  the  evening  he  found  his  wife
dead. He alleged that his in-laws were demanding  money  which  he  did  not
give, and as a result, false case  of  dowry-death  got  registered  against
him.
15.   In defence,  the  accused  produced  Ram  Prakash,  owner  of  Prakash
Transport. He stated that on 26th  August,  1991,  accused-Manohar  Lal  was
employed with him as driver  of a truck and went to Kaithal.  He  came  back
at 5.00P.M. and told him about the incident.  He handed  over  the  accused-
Manohar Lal to the police.
16.   Section 304B IPC relates to dowry death and reads as follows:
“304B. Dowry death.— (1) Where the death of a woman 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 demand  for  dowry,  such  death
shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be  deemed
to have caused her death. Explanation.—For the purpose of this  sub-section,
“dowry”  shall  have  the  same  meaning  as  in  section  2  of  the  Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with  imprisonment  for  a
term which shall not be less than  seven  years  but  which  may  extend  to
imprisonment for life.”



17.   For the purpose of the said Section, a presumption can be raised  only
on proof of the following essentials:
(a)   Death of the woman was caused by burns  or  bodily  injury  or  occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances.

(b)   Such death took place within seven years of her marriage.

(c)         The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her  husband
or his relatives.

(d)         Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection  with,  any
demand for dowry and

(e)   Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.


In this connection, we may refer decision of this Court in Kaliaperumal  vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828.

18.   In Sunil Bajaj vs. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 417, this Court held:

“5. We have given our attention and consideration to  the  submissions  made
by the learned counsel for the parties. Normally this  Court  will  be  slow
and reluctant, as it ought to be, to upset the order of  conviction  of  the
trial court as confirmed by the High Court appreciating the evidence  placed
on record. But in cases  where  both  the  courts  concurrently  recorded  a
finding that the accused  was  guilty  of  an  offence  in  the  absence  of
evidence satisfying the  necessary  ingredients  of  an  offence,  in  other
words, when no offence was made out, it becomes necessary  to  disturb  such
an order of conviction and sentence to meet the demand of justice. In  order
to convict an accused for an offence under Section 304-B IPC, the  following
essentials must be satisfied:
[pic](1) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily
injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(2) such death must have occurred within 7 years of her marriage;
(3) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty  or
harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
(4) such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with  demand  of
dowry.
6. It is  only  when  the  aforementioned  ingredients  are  established  by
acceptable evidence such death  shall  be  called  “dowry  death”  and  such
husband or his relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. It may  be
noticed that punishment for the offence of dowry death under  Section  304-B
is imprisonment of not less than 7 years, which may extend  to  imprisonment
for life. Unlike under Section 498-A IPC, husband or relative of husband  of
a woman subjecting her to cruelty shall be liable  for  imprisonment  for  a
term which may extend to three years and  shall  also  be  liable  to  fine.
Normally, in a criminal case the accused can be punished for an  offence  on
establishment of commission of that offence on the basis of evidence,  maybe
direct or circumstantial or both. But in case of an  offence  under  Section
304-B IPC, an exception is made by deeming provision as to nature  of  death
as “dowry death” and that the husband or his relative, as the case  may  be,
is deemed to have caused such death, even in  the  absence  of  evidence  to
prove these aspects but on proving the existence of the ingredients  of  the
said offence by convincing evidence. Hence, there is need for  greater  care
and caution, that too  having  regard  to  the  gravity  of  the  punishment
prescribed for the  said  offence,  in  scrutinizing  the  evidence  and  in
arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the abovementioned  ingredients
of the offence are proved by the prosecution.  In  the  case  on  hand,  the
learned counsel for the appellant could  not  dispute  that  the  first  two
ingredients mentioned above are satisfied.”


1 19. The expression “soon before her death” used in the  Section  304B  IPC
and Section 113B of the Evidence Act was considered by this  Court  in  Hira
Lal  & Others vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC  80,which  reads
as under:

“8. Section 304-B IPC which deals with dowry death, reads as follows:
“304-B. Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a woman 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 demand  for  dowry,  such  death
shall be called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be  deemed
to have caused her death.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section,  ‘dowry’  shall  have  the
same meaning as in Section 2 of the  Dowry  Prohibition  Act,  1961  (28  of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with  imprisonment  for  a
term which shall not be less than  seven  years  but  which  may  extend  to
imprisonment for life.”
The provision has application when death of a woman 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  relatives  of
her husband for, or in connection with any demand for  dowry.  In  order  to
attract application of Section 304-B IPC, the essential ingredients  are  as
follows:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused  by  burns  or  bodily  injury  or
otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by  her  husband
or any relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection  with  demand
of dowry.
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the  woman
soon before her death.
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for  the  case  at  hand.
Both Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act  were  inserted
as noted earlier by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act  43  of  1986  with  a
view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths.  Section  113-B  reads
as follows:
“113-B. Presumption as to  dowry  death.—When  the  question  is  whether  a
person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is  shown  that  soon
before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty  or
harassment for, or in connection with,  any  demand  for  dowry,  the  Court
shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
[pic]Explanation.—For the purposes of  this  section,  ‘dowry  death’  shall
have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal  Code  (45  of
1860).”
The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has  been  amply  analysed
by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report dated 10-8-1988 on  “Dowry
Deaths and Law Reform”. Keeping in view the impediment in  the  pre-existing
law in securing evidence to  prove  dowry-related  deaths,  the  legislature
thought it wise to insert a  provision  relating  to  presumption  of  dowry
death on proof  of  certain  essentials.  It  is  in  this  background  that
presumptive Section 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per  the
definition of “dowry death” in Section 304-B IPC  and  the  wording  in  the
presumptive Section  113-B  of  the  Evidence  Act,  one  of  the  essential
ingredients, amongst others, in  both  the  provisions  is  that  the  woman
concerned must have been “soon before her death”  subjected  to  cruelty  or
harassment “for or in connection with  the  demand  of  dowry”.  Presumption
under Section 113-B is a presumption of law.  On  proof  of  the  essentials
mentioned  therein,  it  becomes  obligatory  on  the  court  to   raise   a
presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The  presumption  shall
be raised only on proof of the following essentials:
(1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has  committed
the dowry death of the woman.  (This  means  that  the  presumption  can  be
raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-
B IPC.)
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband  or  his
relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand  for
dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.”


Similar observation was made by this Court in Balwant Singh and Another  vs.
State of Punjab (2004) 7 SCC 724. In the said case this Court held:

“10. These decisions and other decisions of  this  Court  do  lay  down  the
proximity test. It has been reiterated in several decisions  of  this  Court
that “soon before”  is  an  expression  which  permits  of  elasticity,  and
therefore the proximity test has to be applied keeping  in  view  the  facts
and circumstances of each case. The facts  must  show  the  existence  of  a
proximate live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand  and
the death of the victim.”

20.   In the present case, from the statement of PW.1 it  appears  that  the
death took place within seven years of marriage. Admittedly,  death  of  the
deceased was due to burning i.e. not in normal  circumstances.  We  have  to
see now whether the remaining two ingredients  are  satisfied  looking  into
the evidence on record.
21.   The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and not specific.  No
specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty  or  harassment
made by the accused-Manohar Lal. Her  statement  is  not  reliable  and  not
trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made none  of  the
witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed “soon  before
her death” for or in connection with demand of dowry. The accused  appellant
was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC but  the  Trial  Court
has not convicted the accused under Section 498-A. In  this  background,  we
are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to  prove  that
the  accused  harassed  the  deceased  soon  before  her  death  for  or  in
connection with a demand of dowry.
22.   For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment  passed  by  the  Trial  Court
dated 26th August, 1994 as upheld by the High  Court  by  impugned  judgment
dated 26th March, 2007, cannot be upheld.  They are accordingly  set  aside.
The accused-Manohar Lal is acquitted from  the  charge  under  Section  304B
IPC. The appeal is allowed.  Bail Bonds, if any, stand discharged.

                                            ………………………………………………………………………………J.
                         (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)


                                            ………………………………………………………………………………J.
                                                  (DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 01, 2014.



ITEM NO.1E               COURT NO.6                 SECTION IIB

(For Judgment)



               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS



Criminal Appeal No(s). 1188/2009



MANOHAR LAL                                        Appellant(s)



                                VERSUS



STATE OF HARYANA                                   Respondent(s)





Date : 01/07/2014      This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
            Judgment today.





For Appellant(s)       Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal ,Adv.



For Respondent(s)            Mrs. Santosh Singh ,Adv.







       Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Sudhansu  Jyoti  Mukhopadhaya  pronounced  the
reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His  Lordship  and  Hon'ble  Mr.
Justice Dipak Misra.



      The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.











(MEENAKSHI KOHLI)                               (USHA SHARMA)

  COURT MASTER                                   COURT MASTER



             [Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file]








No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.