Supreme Court of India
RAKESH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 188
- Decided
- 22 March 2013
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
The prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt; the dying declaration was admissible and the convictions under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 IPC were upheld.
Summary
The deceased Kailash, married to Rakesh, was subjected to dowry harassment by her husband and mother‑in‑law and was set ablaze in their home, resulting in her death. The prosecution relied primarily on Kailash's dying declaration, which was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate after a doctor certified her fitness to testify. The accused also sustained burn injuries on his hands, but he did not seek medical treatment until after his arrest, a fact the Court held did not negate his participation in the crime. The defense argued that the dying declaration was unreliable, that the presence of relatives during recording and the injuries to the husband rendered the conviction unsafe, and sought to reduce the murder charge to culpable homicide. The Supreme Court examined the procedural safeguards surrounding the dying declaration, the medical evidence, and the consistency of the testimony, concluding that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the convictions under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 IPC were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Issues considered
- The admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration of the deceased.
- Whether the burn injuries sustained by the husband preclude his participation in setting the victim on fire.
- Whether contradictions in the dying declaration and presence of relatives during recording affect its credibility.
- Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part I.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34, s. 498A
Subjects
dowry deathdying declarationIPC 498AIPC 302common intentionmurderburn injuriesevidence
Judgment
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 295
RAKESH AND ANOTHER A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1779 of 2009)
MARCH 22, 2013
8
[P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.498A and 302 r/w s.34 - Dowry
death - Prosecution of husband and mother-in-Jaw -
Conviction by courts below relying on dying declaration of the C
deceased - Held: Prosecution case established beyond
reasonable doubt - The dying declaration is acceptable in
view of the facts of the case - Conviction
\
upheld.
The appellants-accused were prosecuted u/ss. 498- ·
0
A and 302 rlw s. 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that
A-1 and A-2, husband and mother-in-law of the deceased
respectively, used to harass the deceased for dowry and
killed her setting her on fire. Trial court convicted the
accused primarily relying on the Dying Declaration of the E
deceased. High Court confirmed the conviction.
In appeal to this Court the appellants-accused inter
alia contended that the Dying Declaration was not reliable
and that in view of the. burn injuries on the hands of the
accused-husband, it was highly improbable that he set F
the deceased on fire.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The prosecution has established its case
beyond reasonable doubt. The materials placed by the G
prosecution about the recording of dying declaration,
procedure followed, fitness of the deceased to make the
statement, the evidence of doctor and the evidence of
295 H
296 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 5 S.C.R.
A Magistrate, who recorded the statement, amply prove
their case. The statement of the deceased in the form of
dying declaration is fully acceptable since on receipt of
intimation from the police, the Judicial Magistrate (PW-10)
reached the hospital and after satisfying herself through
B the statement of the duty doctor that the deceased was
conscious and fit to make a statement, recorded her
statement in the form of question and answers. In the
dying declaration, she had specifically stated that her
husband scolded her for not brining money in the
c marriage of her sister. He used to demand money from
her father. Her in-laws used to harass/tease her for not
bringing sufficient dowry and on the relevant date her
mother-in-law caught hold of her hands and her husband
set her on fire with a match stick after sprinkling kerosene
0 oil. It is also seen from her dying declaration that before
she was set on fire, her husband gave beat on her neck
with his leg and she was beaten up mercilessly. The
claim that there was wrong description of names in the
dying declaration and some of the relatives were present
E at the time of recording of dying declaration, are not
material contradictions which would affect the
prosecution case. [Paras 16, 18 and 21) (304-G-H; 305-A-
D, H; 360-A, E]
2. The plea - that in view of the burn injuries in the
F hands sustained by accused-husband, it was highly
impossible that he set the deceased ablaze - is not
sustainable. Though the accused-husband took the
deceased to the hospital admittedly, he did not try to get
any treatment from the doctor for his own alleged burn
G injuries. Nothing prevented him from taking treatment on
the same day from the same doctor. Admittedly, he did
not get treatment till he was arrested on 21.05.1998. [Para
17] (305-0-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
H No. 1779 of 2009. I
I
RAKESH v. STATE OF HARYANA 297
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2006 of the A
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal
No. 575-DB of 2001.
R.N. Kush, S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellants.
Kamal Mohari Gupta, Mohd. Zahid Hussain for the B
Respondent.
,;: ...
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATl'lASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against
the final judgment and order dated 15.05.2006 passed by the
c
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal No. 575-DB of 2001 whereby the Division Bench of the
High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants
herein and confirmed the judgment on conviction and sentence
dated 27.09.2001 and 28.09.2001 respectively, passed by the D
Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, Haryana in Sessions
Case No. 39 of 1998/2001 holding the appellants guilty for the
offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with
Section 34 of the lntlian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for one E
year for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and a fine
of Rs.500/- each and RI for life for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with 34 IPC and a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in
default, to undergo RI for one year and both the sentences to
run concurrently. F
2. Brief facts:
(a) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased -
Kailash was married to Rakesh, resident of Gohana, Sonepat
about 8 years prior to the date of the incident. Out of the G
wedlock, four children were born to them. At the time of
marriage, adequate dowry was given by the parents of the
deceased. However, being unsatisfied with the dowry, Kailash
has been subjected to harassment and cruelty in her
H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R.
A matrimonial home by Rakesh (A-1) and Smt. Ram Piari, (A-2)
mother-in-law. 15 days prior to the occurrence, the deceased
attended the marriage of her sister along with her husband and
in-laws. The accused started harassing her for not bringing
adequate amount after seeing the marriage of her sister.
B
(b) On 14.05.1998, at about 11 p.m., a quarrel took place
in the house of Rakesh (A-1) where he put his leg on the neck
of the deceased and beaten her mercilessly. Thereafter, Ram
Piari (A-2) caught hold of the hands of the deceased while '"'
Rakesh (A-1) sprinkled kerosene upon her and set her ablaze.
c At that time, Lala, younger brother of Rakesh (A-1) was also
present in the house. On the same night, Rakesh (A-1), Ram
Piari (A-2) and Siri Ram - father-in-law took the deceased to
the hospital and admitted her in the hospital on 15.05.1998 at
1.30 a.m. After getting a telephonic message, the parents of
D the deceased also reached the hospital.
(c) On 16.05.1998, on receipt of telephonic information
about the admission of Kailash in PGI MS, Rohtak, on account
of burn injuries, the police contacted Kailash and an application
E was moved by the investigating officer to the Duty Magistrate
at 5.50 p.m. Ms. Shalini Nagpal, Judicial Magistrate, on getting
the permission of the doctor at 6.10 p.m. about the fitness of •
the victim to make a statement, recorded her statement. •
(d) On the same day, a copy of the statement was sent to
F the police station for registration of the case. An FIR was
registered and the investigating officer took the case for
investigation on 17.05.1998.
(e) On 21.05.1998, Rakesh was arrested and got
G medically examined by the doctor who opined that his hands
were found to be having superficial to deep burns. On his
disclosure, a stove containing the kerosene was recovered. .
•
(f) On 29.05.1998 Ram Piari- mother-in-law of the
H
deceased was also arrested. Ultimately, on 04.06.1998,
.
•
•
..
RAKESH v. STATE OF HARYANA 299
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Kailash succumbed to her injuries in Safdarjung Hospital at A
New Delhi.
(g) On completion of the investigation, charges for the
, offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with
• Section 34 IPC were framed against the. accused.
B
l (h) The Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, after
.I examination of all the witnesses, vide judgment 27.09.2001,
convicted the accused persons guilty for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. By
judgment dated 28.09.2001, the trial Jadge, sentenced the C
accused persons to RI for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- under
Section 498-A and RI for life and a fine of Rs.2000/- under
Section 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, both the
accused shall have to undergo RI for one year. Both the
sentences shall run concurrently. D
(i) Being aggrieved, the accused persons (A-1 and A-2)
filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh. After hearing both the parties, by impugned
judgment dated 15.05.2006, the High Court confirmed the E
judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred
by the appellants herein.
0) Questioning the conviction and sentence, Rakesh (A-1)
and Smt. Ram Piari (A-2) preferred this appeal by way of
special leave before this Court and leave was granted on F
11.09.2009.
3. Heard Mr. R.N. Kush, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants-accused and Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
G
Contentions:
4. Mr. R.N. Kush, learned counsel for the appellants, at the
foremost, contended that since the deceased - Kailash was not
fit to make a statement as she was suffering from 85% burn H·
/ 300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R.
A injuries, reliance and conviction based on the dying declaration
cannot be sustained. He furt~er submitted that Rakesh (A-1)
also suffered injuries which are indicative of the fact that he
came to rescue her wife on seeing her burning. On the other
hand, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-State ·
B contended that the dying declaration was recorded by the
Judicial Magistrate only after the duty doctor duly certified that
she was in a fit condition to make a statement and the same
was rightly relied on by both the courts below. As regards the
second contention, it is pointed out by that if the injuries alleged
c to have been sustained by Rakesh (A-1) as claimed by him,
nothing prevented him from taking treatment on the date of the
incident, particularly when he took the deceased to the Hospital.
However, the fact remains that only on 21.05.1998, when he
was arrested by the police, he showed his alleged injuries to
the doctor which itself create a doubt about his version.
0
5. We have perused all the relevant materials and
considered the rival contentions.
Discussion:
E
6. It is not in dispute that the deceased - Kailash sustained
burn injuries at the house of the accused - Rakesh where they
were living for about eight years. The incident occurred at 11.00
p.m. on 14.05.1998 and she was admitted in the hospital on
15.05.1998 at about 1.30 a.m. It is also not in dispute that the
F deceased was under the supervision of doctors as well as the
accused Rakesh till 10.00 a.m. on 16.05.1998.
7. Now, let us consider the dying declaration, its contents,
and the procedure followed while recording the same. It is seen
G that after knowing the condition of the deceased, the police
requested Ms. Shalini Nagpal, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Rohtak (PW-10) for recording her statement. It is further seen
that before recording her statement, the Magistrate (PW-10)
asked for the opinion of the duty doctor about her condition
H whether she was fit to make a statement. The record shows
..
""'KAK~SK v. STATE OF-·RAFrY'ANA 301
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
that after obtaining the opinion of doctor, all the police officials A
and relatives were directed to leave the ward. Dr. Raman Sethi
(PW-6) explained to the patient that she is deposing before the
Magistrate and apprised that she is free to make her statement
voluntarily without any fear or pressure. After satisfying her
position to make a statement, the Magistrate (PW-10) recorded B
the statement of the deceased. It reads as follows:
"Q: How many years have passed to your marriage?
Ans: 8 years
c
Q: How many children have you?
Ans: Four
Q: On which day the incident took place?
D
Ans: The quarrel was continuingfor the last 15 days.
Q: On the night of last Thursday at 11.00 P.M. what
happened with you?
Ans: My husband used to say as to why I did not bring E
money in the marriage of my sister. He used to
demand money from my father. My mother-in-law
Ram Piari and father-in-law Siri Ram used to
harass/tease me for dowry. It was Thursday, my
mother-in-law, Devar (husband's younger brother) F
Lala were at home. My mother-in-law caught hold
of my hand and my husband set me on fire with
match stick after sprinkling kerosene oil. My devar
came afterwards, when I was set on fire. My
husband gave beating to me and set me ablaze. G
Then my husband put his leg on my neck and I was
beaten up mercilessly. After that my father-in-law
came, but he did not set me on fire. My husband,
mother-in-law and father-in-law brought me to the
hospital.
H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R.
/
A Q: Do you want to say any thing else?
Ans: No
(Right great Toe impression of Patient) Sd/- J.M.l.C.(D)
B R.O. & A.C.
Patient remained fit and conscious during the statement
Sd/- in English Dr. Raman Sethi
P.G. Surg 5/IV'
c
8. In order to strengthen the above statement, the
prosecution examined Dr. Raman Sethi (PW-6) who certified
the condition of the deceased. In his evidence, he deposed that
on 16.05.1998, Ram Kumar (ASI) moved an application (Ex.
D PD) before him seeking opinion regarding fitness of Kailash,
W/o Rakesh, resident of Gohana for making a statement. PW-
6 declared her fit to make a statement at 6.30 p.m. on
16.05.1998. Basing on his statement, the duty Magistrate
recorded her statement. Even after recording the statement,
E PW-6 again examined Kailash and opined that the deceased
remained fit and conscious during her statement. He also stated
that the statement was over within 20 minutes and also
informed that he did not treat the patient at any stage and
denied that he gave wrong opinion at the behest of Magistrate.
F 9. Ms. Shalini Nagpal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Rohtak, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased
was examined as PW-10. According to her, on 16.05.1998, the
police had moved an application before her for recording the
statement of Kailash, and she had visited PGIMS, Rohtak at
G about 5.50 p.m. on the same day and contacted the doctor
concerned in Ward No.5 and sought his opinion about her
fitness to make a statement. She asserted that th·e doctor had
declared Kailash fit to make a statement (Memo Ex PB/3). She
further explained that thereafter, she recorded her statement in
H the form of question and answers form which is Ext. PB. The
-) RAKESH v. STATE OF HARYANA 303
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
... statement was concluded by her at 6.25 p.m and PW-6, after
examining the deceased certified that Kailash was in her sense
throughout the period of her examination. She also deposed
A
that the statement (Ex.PB) had been recorded by her in the very
language of Kailash without any addition or omission and her
certificate to that effect is Ex.PB/5. The certificate of the doctor B
about the physical condition of the deceased during the course
of examination is Ex.PB/4. She also informed the Court that the
statement was read over to Kailash who accepted the contents
_, to be correct. She also stated that she did not obtaimthe thumb
impression of the patient as both her hands were burnt, hence c
she elected to obtain the impression of her right toe. In the cross
examination, she admitted that the document exhibited as
Ex.PB by her is the carbon copy prepared by her in the same
process. It is also clear from her evidence that before recording
the statement of the deceased, she specifically directed the
D
police officials and relatives to leave the ward so that the patient
was not under any influence while making the statement before
her. Though, in the evidence, it has come on record that few of
the relatives were standing in the ward, in view of the assertion
of the Magistrate (PW-10) who recorded her statement, mere
.. presence of some of the close relatives would not affect the E
contents of the declaration.
10. Dr. S.P. Chug, Casualty Medical Officer, PGIMS,
Rohtak was examined as PW-11. In his evidence, he deposed
that on 15.05.1998 at about 1.30 a.m., he examined Kailash F
W/o Rakesh and on examination he found that the patient was
conscious, pulse and BP were unrecordable. He further stated
that there were superficial to deep burns involving almost all the
body except the legs below the knees. There was approx. 85%
burns which were subjected to surgeon's opinion and was kept G
under observation. Though it was pointed out that while
recording the history of the patient, he noted that it was the
accidental fire while cooking food, in view of categorical
statement by the deceased in her dying declaration the
H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R.
A reference made by PW-11 while recording the history of the
patient would not affect the prosecution case.
11. Dr. B.S.KadiaQ~
I
Medical Officer of CHC, Gohana was
examined as PW-7., In his evidence, he explained the nature
of burn injuries.
B
12. Dr. L.K. Barua, who was examined as PW-13 has
conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Kailash and
submitted the report vide (Ex.PH). He asserted that the death ,_
was due to burn injuries.
c
13. Hiralal, father of the deceased was examined,ies PW-
14. He explained the manner in which the in-laws of Kailash
was behaving with her prior to the occurrence. He has
supported the entire prosecution version.
D 14. Madhu - daughter of Rakesh aged about 12 years, was
examined as a defence witness. Though she deposed that her
mother caught fire, per chance, from the kersone stove,
however, she admitted that her father Rakesh was present in
the house at the time of the incident.
E
15. It is not in dispute that the accused did not inform the
parents of the deceased about the incident. Though it is the
claim of A-1 that it was he who informed PW-14, father of the
deceased, in his evidence, he denied the same and according
F to him, he received a message from Hukum Chand. It is also
relevant to note that only after arrival of PW-14 and on seeing
the deteriorating condition of her daughter, he complained to
the doctor concerned to shift her to Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi. The fact remains that the accused did not take any such
G step. '
16. The statement of the deceased in the form of dying
declaration is fully acceptable since on receipt of intimation
from the police, the Judicial Magistrate (PW-10) reached the
hospital and after satisfying herself through the statement of the
H duty doctor that the deceased was conscious ar;d fit to make
RAKESH v. STATE OF HARYANA 305
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
a statement, recorded her statement in the form of question and A
answers. In the dying declaration, which we have extracted in
the earlier part of our order, she had specifically stated that her
husband scolded her for not brining money in the marriage of
her sister. He used to demand money from her father. Her in-
laws used to harass/tease her for not bringing sufficient dowry B
and on the relevant date her mother-in-law caught hold of her
hands and her husband set her on fire with a match stick after
sprinkling kerosene oil. It is also seen from her dying
declaration that before she was set on fire, her husband gave
beat on her neck with his leg and she was beaten up C
mercilessly. Considering the materials placed by the
prosecution about the recording of dying declaration, procedure
followed, her fitness to make a statement, the evidence of
doctor and the evidence of Magistrate, who recorded her
statement, it amply prove their case.
D
17. Coming to the claim that inasmuch as the husband
Rakesh also sustained burn injuries in his hands, it is highly
impossible to set her ablaze, it is relevant to note that the
incident occurred late night on 14.05.1998, though the accused-
husband took her to the hospital admittedly, he did not tried to E
i get any treatment from the doctor for the alleged burn injuries.
1
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the State, if
he had sustained burn injuries in his hands nothing prevented
.,
,I him from taking treatment on the same day from the same
• doctor. Admittedly, he did not get treatment till he was arrested F
on 21.05.1998. In view of the same, the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant that inasmuch as the bum injuries were
found on the hands of tl:le ' husband, it was necessary to look
for corroboration is liable to be rejected. In view of the factual
position, the decisions of various Courts relied on by the counsel G
for the appellants on this aspect are not applicable to the case
on hand and theire is no need to refer the same. '
18. The claim that there was wrong description of names
in the dying declaration and so'me of the relatives were present
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r20131 s s.c.R:·
A at the time of recording of dying declaration are not material
contradictions which would affect the prosecution case,
19. Though learned counsel for the appellants contended
that in view of the conduct of A-1 taking the deceased to the
hospital and he also sustained injuries on his hand prayed for
8
altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I,
in view of our earlier discussion, we are not in a position to
accept the same. It is not in dispute that the occurrence took
place in the house of the accused where Kailash was residing,
and unfortunately, even after having four children, she died at
C the matrimonial home due to burn injuries at the instance of the
accused appellants. There is no valid ground to· alter the
conviction as pleaded by the counsel for the first appellant.
20. Inasmuch as the second appellant-Ram Piari had been
D released after 14 years on the orders of the appropriate
Government, no argument was advanced about the decision ·
of the courts below.
21. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that~
the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonabl~
E doubt and we are in entire agreement with the conclusion.
arrived at by the trial Court as well as the High Court
Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
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