BANARSI DASS AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA

BANARSI DASS AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA

The dying declaration in the present case does not meet the requirements under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and cannot be relied upon. The ingredients of Section 304B of IPC are not satisfied since the death was caused by septicemia, not burns, and the burn injuries were accidental. Conviction under Section 498A of IPC is maintained only for those accused against whom evidence of harassment exists.

Parties
Appellants: Banarsi Dass and Others; Respondent: State of Haryana
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed
Legal Topics
Dying Declaration, Dowry Harassment, Cruelty by Husband and in Laws

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Banarsi Dass and Others

Appellants

State of Haryana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the dying declaration of the deceased meets the requirements of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act
  2. 2 Whether the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC are made out against the accused
  3. 3 Whether conviction under Section 498A of IPC is justified

Ratio Decidendi

The dying declaration in the present case does not meet the requirements under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and cannot be relied upon. The ingredients of Section 304B of IPC are not satisfied since the death was caused by septicemia, not burns, and the burn injuries were accidental. Conviction under Section 498A of IPC is maintained only for those accused against whom evidence of harassment exists.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed

Orders

  • Conviction under Section 304B of IPC in respect of all appellants is set aside.
  • Conviction under Section 498A of IPC in respect of appellant No.4 is set aside.