HARISH KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

HARISH KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

The conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC (dowry death) is not sustainable as the defence rebutted the presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act through a voluntary and truthful dying declaration; however, the conviction under Section 498A IPC (cruelty relating to dowry demand) stands proved on sufficient evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Harish Kumar; Respondent: State of Haryana
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence (from High Court Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Dowry Death, Cruelty, Dying Declaration, Burden of Proof, Presumption, Evidence, Dowry Demand
Criminal Law Dowry Death Cruelty Dying Declaration Burden of Proof Presumption Evidence Dowry Demand

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harish Kumar

Appellant

State of Haryana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence (from High Court Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC (dowry death) is sustainable?
  2. 2 Whether the dying declaration recorded was voluntary and truthful?
  3. 3 Whether the charge under Section 498A IPC (cruelty) stands proved?

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC (dowry death) is not sustainable as the defence rebutted the presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act through a voluntary and truthful dying declaration; however, the conviction under Section 498A IPC (cruelty relating to dowry demand) stands proved on sufficient evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence under Section 304B IPC set aside
  • Conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld