HARISH KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                         [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1298


 A                       HARISH KUMAR
                                v.
                      STATE OF HARYANA
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1297 of 2011)
 B                   DECEMBER 16, 2014.
        [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
         Penal Code, 1860: s. 3048, 498-A - Dowry death -
   Death by burn injuries - Conviction of husband of victim-
   deceased - Defence relying on the dying declaration
C recorded by DW-2, Naib Tehsildar in presence of DW-1,
   Medical Officer to the effect that burn injuries were accidental
   and no one responsible for same - Held: As regards cruelty
   on account of demand of dowry, there was sufficient evidence
  to establish the charge - However, defence was able to
D discharge its onus to rebut the presumption u/s.1138 of
  Evidence Act in respect of s. 304-8 - The dying declaration
  was voluntary and truthful - DW-1 and DW-2 were not
  interested witnesses- Rather they were independent public
  witnesses who had discharged their duties after the police
E approached DW-2, Tehsildar in response to memorandum
  (Ruqa) received from DW-1, Medical Officer - The
  dying declaration was voluntary and truthful - Conviction
  u!s.498-A is upheld while conviction u/s. 304-8 is set
  aside - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 1138.
F      Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
         HELD: 1. As far as cruelty on account of demand
  of dowry was concerned, there is sufficient evidence
  adduced by PW 8 (father of deceased) and PW 9 (mother
G of deceased) which was corroborated by PW 5
  (neighbour) and PW 10 (grand father of the deceased)
  to establish the charge. As such charge under Section
  498A IPC stood proved against accused. But the finding
  as to whether death of deceased was accidental or not,
H required careful scrutiny particularly in view of the fact
                               1298
        HARISH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                  1299


that deceased gave dying declaration five days before A
her death to the public servant in the presence of medical
officer, after police requested Tehsildar for recording the
same. [Para 17][1307-G-H; 1308-A-C]
       2. Certain facts cannot be ignored in this case.
Firstly, immediately after the incident, within half an hour 8
the husband took his wife to the hospital and got her
admitted to Civil/General Hospital where medico legal
examination was recorded by the doctor PW-1. The
parents of the deceased were informed about the
incident and they visited their injured daughter in the C
hospital, as is apparent from the statements of PW-8 and
 PW-9. The deceased died five days after the incident. It
 also came on the record that PW-1 sent a memo (ruqa)
 to police, on which, as stated by PW-13 SI request was
 sent to Tehsildar for recording of dying declaration. PW- D
 13 SI has stated that Tehsildar marked the request of the
 police to the Naib Tehsildar on which Naib Tehsildar on
 14.9.1993 recorded the dying declaration. DW-1, Medical
 Officer of the hospital where the deceased was admitted,
 was present at the time of recording of dying declaration E
 and he made the endorsement that the patient was in a
 fit condition to make it. [Para 20)(1308-F-H; 1309-A-D)
      3. DW-1 and DW-2 were not interested witnesses.
Rather they were independent public witnesses who F
have discharged their duties after the police approached
Tehsildar in response to memorandum (Ruqa) received
from PW-1. The dying declaration made by the deceased
before Naib Tehsildar in the presence of Medical Officer
was voluntary and truthful. The defence has discharged G
its onus to rebut the presumption that could have been
gathered under Section 1138 of the Indian Evidence Act,
in respect of offence punishable under Section 304-B
l.P.C. The conviction of the appellant under Section 498A
                                                            H
1300        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A IPC, is upheld and sentenced him to rigorous
   imprisonment for a period of three years, which he has
   already undergone, and set aside the conviction and
   sentence recorded against the appellant, in respect of
   the offence punishable under Section 3048 IPC.
 B [Paras 22, 23, 25](1310-E-G; 1311-0-G]
           Surender Kumarv. State of Punjab (2012) 12 SCC
           120 : 2012 (9) SCR 1019 ; Na/lam Veera
           Stayanandam and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High
           Court of A.P (2004) 1o sec 769 - relied on.
 c
           Smt. Shanti and Anr v. State of Haryana AIR 1991
           SC 1226: 1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 675 - referred
           to.
                      CASE LAW REFERENCE
 D 1990 (.2) Suppl. SCR 675              referred to. Para 11
       2012 (9) SCR 1019                 relied on.      Para 23
       (2004) 1o sec 769                 relied on.      Para 24
E        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
     Appeal No(s). 1297 of2011.
          From the Judgment and Order dated 07-12-2010 of the
     High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
     Appeal No. 310-SB of 2001.
F          Kaushal Yadav, Adv. for the Appellant.
         Manjit Singh, AAG, Tarjit Singh, Mrs. Vivekta Singh,
     Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G          PRAFULLA C.. PANT, J.
       1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order
  dated 7.12.2010, passed by the High Court of Punjab and
  Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 310-SB of 2001 whereby the
H High Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant Harish
         HARISH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                            1301
               [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

Kumar. He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, A
Hisar in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1994 under Sections 304B
and 498A IPC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
seven years.
     2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length
and perused the record of the case.                                   B
       3. Brief facts of the present case are that accused Harish
Kumar got married with Manisha (deceased) on 14.1:1992.
The couple was blessed with a son in the month of November,
1992. They used to live in Hansi in the district of Hisar, Haryana. c
On 13.9.1993 at about 10.30 p.m., Manisha suffered burn
injuries, and she was immediately taken by her husband Harish
Kumar (appellant) to Civil/General Hospital where she was
admitted at 11.00 p.m., i.e., within half an hour of the incident.
PW-1 Dr. M.L. Kalra, Medical Officer of said hospital, who D
admitted the patient, recorded following medico legal injuries:
       "Superficial burn injuries on anterior part of neck, most
      part of twnk, right side of back, both buttock, both thighs,
      including knees, right foot, most of left upper limb total
      area of burn 50-60%".                                           E
       In the opinion of the Medical Officer (PW-1 ), nature of
injuries was dangerous to life, probable duration of injuries
within 36 hours. In the column - History/outdoor - "accidental
burn injuries" were m'entioned in the medico legal report (Copy
Annexure P-1 ). The Medical Officer sent a memo (Ruqa) Ext.           F
PB to Police Station. On next day, i.e., 14.9.1993, a dying
declaration (Copy Annexure P-2) was recorded by Baru Ram,
Naib Tehsildar (DW-2) in the presence of Dr. Surender Singh
(DW-1 ) of the Civil/General Hospital, Hansi.
                                                                      G
     4. In her dying declaration recorded on 14.9.1993 by the
Naib Tehsildar in the presence of the Medical Officer, the
deceased made a statement of which English translation reads
as under:-
                                                                       H
1302       SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·                [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A          "My marriage was performed with Harish about two
          years back, and there is a son aged 9 months from the
          wedlock. There is no quarrel between us. In the night
          of 13.9.1993 at about 10.30 p.m., all of a sudden, there
          was failure of power. I went to the room as I wanted to lit
 B        the lamp bv striking the match stick. I had to take out
          milk to feed my child. The match box was not in good
          condition. I had to strike match sticks 3-4 times, and
          one of it fell on mv maxi, which I was wearing at the
          time. It caught fire from the side of bottom. I tried to
C         douse it. But it kept on spreading. On this I called my
          husband Harish, who put a blanket on me, and also
          poured 2-3 matkas of water on me. Then he went out.
          and on finding a scooter. my husband took me to
          hospital. No one has set the fire or ablazed, and it was
o         accidental." (Emphasis supplied)
        At the bottom of the above statement Dr. Surender Singh
   DW-1 certified that Manisha Bhatia (deceased) gave the
  statement in his presence and he remained present throughout
  the course of statement, and the patient was fit to give the
E statement. From Annexure P-2 it reveals that it was recorded
  at 10.45 a.m. on 14.9.1993, and Manisha put her thumb
  impression under it. It was also mentioned in Annexure P-2 by
  PW-13 Sub Inspector Ami Chand, who was posted at Police
  Station, City Hansi, that the police received a memo (Ruqa)
F from the Medical Officer of the hospital, but when in the night
  Constable Patak Singh went there, the patient was not in a fit •
  condition to make the statement at that point of time. It is further
  endorsed by PW-13 that on 14.9.1993 on the instruction of
  Tehsildar the dying declaration was got recorded at the hands
G of Naib Tehsildar (DW-2), after· taking the opinion from the
  Medical Officer (DW1 ). It is further mentioned at the end of
  the endorsement by PW-13 that it appears that on striking of a
  match stick in the night to lit the lamp, it fell and the maxi caught

H
         HARISH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                       1303
               [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J:]

fire. It is further endorsed that, however, the matter would be A
investigated, and action would be taken as per the findings.
      5. It further reveals from the record that parents of
Manisha were informed about the incident, and they visited
her in the hospital. It has also come on the record that later
Manisha was referred to Rohtak Medical College for further B
treatment.
      6. On 19.9.1993 (about five days after the incident)
Manisha succumbed to burn injuries (in Rohtak Medical
College, Hospital). It appears that her body was sealed by the c
police, and sent for post mortem examination. PW-3 Dr. Nalini
Cooner conducted post mortem examination on the very day
(19.9.1993) and opined that cause of death of the deceased
was due to burns and its complications. She further opined
that burns were anti mortem in nature and were sufficient to 0
cause death in ordinary course of nature. In her report, she
further recorded that probable time that elapsed between death
and post mortem was within 24 hours.
       7. It appears that though the parents of the deceased not
only visited their daughter in the hospital, but also came to see E
her dead body before the same was cremated, but no
information was given to the police till 23. 9.1993. It is only on
23.9.1993 PW-8 Subhash Chand (father of the deceased) gave
First Information Report alleging that husband of the deceased
and her in-laws harassed her for non-fulfillment for demand of F
dowry. He alleged that accused Harish Kumar asked him to
buy a house for him but he was not able to fulfill the demand. It
is also alleged in the First Information Report by the informant
that his son-in-law Harish Kumar also made demand of scooter
for which he paid Rs.11,000/- to him, but the accused insisted G
for full amount of Rs.20,000/-. He (PW-8) admitted (in the FIR)
that he went to Rohtak Medical College to see his daughter
but she was in unconscious condition. Informant Subhash
Chand (PW-8) stated in the Report that he was told by "KISI"
                                                                   H
1304       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A that Manisha told him/her that at the time her statement was
  · recorded by the Magistrate, she (deceased) was under threat
    of Harish, else he would have killed her son.
         8. On the above report FIR No. 284 was registered at
   Police Station, City Hansi at about 7.50 p.m. on 25.9.1993.
8 After interrogation of the witnesses, the Investigating Officer,
  PW-11, Inspector Jai Prakash, the then Station House Officer
  of Police Station, City Hansi, arrested accused Harish Kumar,
  his younger brother Krishna and his mother lshwari Devi. On
  conclusion of investigation charge sheet appears to have been
C filed against all the three accused for their trial in respect of
  offences punishable under Sections 498A, 3048 and 506 IPC.
  The Sessions JudQe, on committal of the case, after hearing
  the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under
  Sections 498A and 3048 IPC and, in the alternative, charge
D of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section
  34 IPC on 2.2.1994 against all the three accused who pleaded
  not guilty and claimed to be tried.
        9. Prosecution got examined 'PW-1 Dr. M.L. Kalra (the
E Medical Officer who recorded medico' legal injuries at the time
  of admission in the hospital), PW-2 Shamsher Singh (formal
  witness), PW-3 Dr. Nalini Cooner (who conducted post mortem
  examination), PW-4 Subhash Chand (alleged landlord), PW-
  5 Hans Raj (neighbour of the accused and deceased), PW-6
F Raj Rani (aunt of the deceased), PW-7 S.I. Dharampal (formal
  witness), PW-8 Subhash Chand (informant and father of the
  deceased), PW-9 Veena Bhatia (mother of the deceased),
  PW-10 Hari Chand (grandfather of the deceased), PW-11
  Inspector Jai Prakash (w~o investigated the crime), PW-12
  Inspector Ram Ohan (formal witness) and PW-13 Sub Inspector
G Ami Chand (who made endorsement in the dying declaration
  dated 14.9.1993).



H
         HARISH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                          1305
               [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

      10. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the A
accused Harish Kumar on 10.2.1999 under Section 313 CrPC
in reply to which he alleged that the evidence adduced against
him is false. Other accused also pleaded the same. In defence
DW-1 Dr. Surender Singh, Medical Officer of Civil/General
Hospital before whom dying declaration was recorded, and B
DW-2 Baru Ram, Naib Tehsildar, who recorded the dying
declaration, were examined.                             ·
      11. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that
the prosecution has sufficiently proved charge of offence
punishable under Sections 498A and 3048 IPC against all C
the three accused, namely, Harish Kumar (husband), Krishna
(brother-in-law) and lshwari Devi (mother-in-law) and after
hearing on sentence each one of them was sentenced to seven
years rigorous imprisonment under Section 3048 IPC with the
observation that no separate sentence is required to be D
awarded under Section 498A IPC in the light of Smt. Shanti
and another v. State of Haryana 1•
       12. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated
28.2.2001/1.3.2001, passed in Sessions Case No. 1of1994,            E
all the three convicts filed Criminal Appeal No. 310-SB of 2001.
The High Court after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal
of co-accused lshwari Devi and Krishna, PW 4 has stated that
said two accused were not living with deceased and her
husband. However, the appeal of Harish Kumar (husband)              F
was dismissed Hence, this appeal before us by the accused
Harish Kumar by way of Special Leave Petition. The leave
was granted by this Court on 4.7.2011.
     13. Before further discussion we think it just and proper
to mention the relevant provisions of law applicable to this       G
case. Section 3048 IPC reads as under: -         ·




'AIR 1991SC1226                                                    H
1306    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A      "3048. 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
 B      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
 c     "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of
       the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28of1961).
            (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
 D
       imprisonment for life."
       14. Section 498A IPC reads as under: -      •
       "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
       subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the
 E     husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
       subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
       imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
       and shall also be liable to fine.

 F           Explanation. - For the purpose of this section,
       "cruelty" means -
       (a)   any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
             likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
             cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
 G           (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
       (b)   harassment of the woman where such harassment
             is with a view to coercing her or any person related
             to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property

 H
         HARISH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                        1307
               [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

           or valuable security or is on account of failure by   A
           her or any person related to her to meet such
           demand."
     15. Section 1138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
provides as under: -
                                                                 8
     "1138. 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 has been subjected by such person
     to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any    c
     demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such
     person had caused the dowry death.
          Explanation - For the purpose of this section,
     "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section
     3048 of the Indian Penal Code (45of1860)."                  D
      16. From the language of Section 3048 IPC read with·
Section 1138 of the Indian Evidence Act it is clear that once
death of a woman is caused by any burn or bodily injury or
occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage, and if it is shown that soon before E
her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband in connection with
demand of dowry, such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death and the court shall presume it. In
other words, in the cases of dowry death, as defined in Section F
3048 IPC, after evidence adduced by the prosecution and
conditions mentioned in Section 1138 Indian Evidence Act,
are fulfilled, court has to take a presumption, and burden shifts
on the accused to rebut the presumption.
                                                                  G
      17. As far as cruelty on account of demand of dowry is
concerned, there is sufficient evidence adduced by PW 8.
Subhash Chand (father of deceased) and PW 9 Veena Bhatia


                                                                 H
1308         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A     (mother of deceased) which is corroborated by PW 5 Hansraj
       (neighbour) and PW 10 Harichand (grand father of the
       deceased) to establish the charge. As such we are not inclined
       to interfere with the conclusions of the trial court and that of
       High Court, with regard to the fact that charge under Section
 B     498A !PC stands proved against accused Harish Kuma •. But
       the finding as to whether death of deceased was accidental
       or not, requires careful scrutiny particularly in view of the fact
       that deceased has given dying declaration five days before
       her death to the public servant in the presence of medical
 c     officer, after police requested Tehsildarfor recording the same.
          18. Learned counsel for the appeUant submitted that by
     proving dying declaration of the deceased, recorded on
     14.9.1993 by getting examined DW-2 Baru Ram, Naib
     Tehsildar and DW-1 Dr. Surender Singh, Medical Officer of
 D the hospital, in whose presence the statement was recorded,
   . the accused has discharged the burden to rebut the
     presumption which could be drawn under Section 1138 of the
     Indian Evidence Act. It is further argued that the courts below
     have erred in law in ignoring the dying declaration of the
 E deceased.
             19. On the other hand, on behalf of the State it is
       contended that the dying declaration dated 14.9.1993 is given
       by the deceased under threat from accused Harish Kumar, as
 F     such the courts below have rightly not relied upon it.
         20. We have considered the rival submissions of the
   parties and carefully scrutinized the record. There are certain
   facts which cannot be ignored in this case. Firstly, immediately
   after the incident at 10.30 p.m. on 13.9.1993, within half an
 G hour the husband took his wife Manisha to the hospital and
   got her admitted. It is not disputed fact that the husband took
   the deceased to Civil/General Hospital, Hansi where medico
   legal examination was recorded by PW-1 Dr. M.L. Kalra at the
   time of admitting the patient (Manisha). It is also not disputed
  H
         HARISH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                      1309
               [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

that the parents of the deceased were informed about the A
incident and they visited their injured daughter in the hospital,
as is apparent from the statements of PW-8 Subhash Chand
(informant and father of the deceased) and PW-9 Veena Bhatia
(mother of the deceased). We have already discussed above
that Manisha died on 19.9.1993, five days after the incident. !! B
has also come on the record that PW-1 Dr. M.L. Kalra sent a
memo ( ruqa) to police. on which. as stated by PW-13 SI Ami
Chand, request was sent to Tehsildar for recording of dying
declaration. PW-13 SI Ami Chand has stated thatTehsildar
marked the request of the police to the Naib Tehsildar on which c
Naib Tehsildar on 14.9.1993 recorded the dying declaration.
It is also relevant to mention here that DW-1 Dr. Surender
Singh, Medical Officer of the hospital where Manisha was
admitted, was present at the time of recording of dying
declaration and he made the endorsementthat the patient was D
in a fit condition to make it.
     21. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that
the courts below have erred in law in not relying the dying
declaration recorded by the Naib Tehsildar in the presence of
the Medical Officer, on the request of the police. Strangely, in E
the First Information Report informant and father of the
deceased Subhash Chand (PW 8) has attempted to explain
the dying declaration already recorded on 14.9.1993 by
mentioning, "MUJHE PATACHALAKI MERI LADKI MANISHA
NE HARISH KE KAHNE PAR JO MAGISTRATE KE SAM NE · F
BAYAAN DIYA THA MANIS HA DARA DHAMKA RAKHI THI Kl
LADKE KO BHI JAAN SE MAAR DEGA. MANISHA NE KISI
KO YEH BAAT KAHi THI Kl MERE PITAJI MILEN TO UNKO
YEH BAATTEN BATA DENA." ( I came to know that my
daughter who made statement before the Magistrate was G
under threat from her husband that her son would be killed.
Manisha told this to "KISI" (someone) whom she requested to
convey it to her father.) The prosecution has attempted to

                                                                H
1310            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A explain the Hindi word "KISI" (someone) by saying that it was
    nick name of PW-6 Raj Rani (aunt of the deceased). The
    explanation given by the witnesses as to the nick name of PW-
    6 Raj Rani, is not convincing as PW-6 Raj Rani is admittedly a
    real sister-in-law of the informant, and real aunt of the
 B deceased. As such there should have been no difficult1 for
    the informant to mention in the First Information Report that it
    was the aunt of the deceased to whom Manis ha told to convey
   'the above alleged fact.
               22. PW-1 Dr. M.L. Kalra, Medical Officer of Civil/General
 c Hospital, Hansi, in his cross-examination, has stated as
       under: -
               "The patient was brought to the hospital by her husband
               Harish Bhatia. She was not unconscious when she was
 0             brought to the hospital .... "
          In the examination-in-chief of this witness it has been
    stated by him, - "she gave history of accidental burn injuries".
    This fact recorded by PW-1 in the medico legal report (copy·
    Annexure P-1) further corroborates the dying declaration
 E recorded on the next day (on 14.9.1993) by the Naib Tehsildar.
    Needless to say that OW~ 1 Dr. Surender Singh and DW-2 Baru
    Ram, Naib Tehsildar. are not interested witnesses. Rather they
    are independent public witnesses who have discharged their
    duties after the police approached Tehsildar in response to
 F- memorandum (Ruqa) received from PW-1 Dr. M.L. Kalra.
         23. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we
   find that the dying declaration dated 14.9.1993, made by the
   deceased, before Naib Tehsildar in the presence of Medical
   Officer, is voluntary and truthful. In SurenderKumarv. State
 G of Punjab 2 , this Court has observed, in para 20, as under: -
                "It is also not obligatory that either an Executive Magistrate
                or a Judicial Magistrate should be present for recording
                a dying declaration. It is enough that there is evidence
 H     2
           (2012) 12 sec 120
             HARISH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                          1311
                   [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

        available to show that the dying declaration is voluntary A
        and truthful. There could be occasions when persons
        from the family of the accused are present and in such a
        situation, the victim may be under some pressure while
        making a dying declaration. In such a case, the court
        has to carefully weigh the evidence and may need to take B
        into consideration the surrounding facts to arrive at the
        correct factual position."
     24. In Na/lam Veera Stayanandam and others v.
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. 3 , in the similar facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court, at the end of para C
6, has observed as under: -
         "In cases where there is more than one dying declaration,
         it is the duty of the court to consider each of them in its
         correct perspective and satisfy itself which one of them 0
         reflects the true state of affairs."
       Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court as
above, in the present case we find sufficient evidence that the
defence has discharged its onus to rebut the presumption that
could have been gathered under Section 1138 of the Indian . E
Evidence Act, in respect of offence punishable under Section
304-B 1.P.C That being so, following the principle of law laid
down in Na/lam Veera Stayanandam and others v. Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (supra), we uphold the
conviction of the appellant Harish Kumar under Section 498A F
IPC, and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for a period
of th.ree years, which he has already undergone, and set aside
the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant,
in respect of the offence punishable under Section 3048 IPC.
The appellantis on bail. He need not surrender. Accordingly G
the appeal stands partly allowed.


Devika Gujral                                 Appeal partly allowed.
3
    (2004) 10 sec 769
                                                                       H