In State of Rajasthan v.

Shravan Kumar & Anr

The Honble Supreme Court held:

If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can
be relied upon without any corroboration but the statement should be consistent throughout

In Sudhakar v. State of M.P.1 a very apt test was provided to check the authenticity and reliability
of dying declarations.

The test of common prudence would be to first examine which of the dying declarations is
corroborated by other prosecution evidence. Further, the attendant circumstances, the condition
of the deceased at the relevant time, the medical evidence, the voluntariness and genuineness of
the statement made by the deceased at the relevant time, medical evidence, the voluntariness and
genuineness of the statement made by the deceased, physical and mental fitness of the deceased
and possibility of the deceased being tutored are some of the factors which would guide the
exercise of judicial discretion by the Court in such matters.

In Pakalanarain Swamy v Emperor2 (1939) the Privy Council held that:

The "circumstances"3 (in Section 32(1) of Evidence Act) can only include the acts done when
and where the death was caused.

The circumstances must be circumstances of the transaction: general expressions indicating fear
or suspicion whether of a particular individual or otherwise and not directly related to the
occasion of the death will not be admissible. Circumstances must have some proximate relation
to the actual occurrence.

In the case of Umedbhai v. State of Gujarat4, this Honble Court held, It is well established
that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances brought out by the
prosecution must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be
no circumstances which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the
accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the court will have to bear in mind

1 (2012) 7 SCC 569

2 Air 1939 PC 47

3 Section 32(1) Indian Evidence Act, 1872

4 AIR 1978 SC 424

cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole.
Any missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case.

Section 498A IPC:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.Whoever, being

the 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. Explanation.For the purpose of this section, cruelty means

(a )any willful 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 (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 or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

A bare perusal shows that the word 'cruelty'5 encompasses any of the following elements:-

(i) Any 'willful' conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide; or (ii) any 'willful' conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman; or (iii)
any 'willful' act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health whether physical or mental
of the woman.

So far as criminality attached to word 'harassment' is concerned it is punishable in the following

circumstances:-

(a) Where the harassment of the woman is with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or (b) Where the
harassment is on account of failure by her or any persons related to her to meet such demand.

There is no concrete evidence to show that the appellants conduct comes under the ambit of
cruelty or harassment defined in the section.

1. The alleged taunts by her mother and father in law were not 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
(whether mental or physical).

5 Section 498A Indian Penal Code 1860

2. The alleged cold behavior of Vaibhav towards the deceased was part and parcel of the
married life and cannot be taken as cruelty or harassment.

Ingredients of cruelty as contemplated under section 498A are of much sterner degree than the
ordinary concept of cruelty applicable for the purposes of divorce. The acts or conduct should be
either such that may cause danger to life, limb or health or cause grave injury or of such a
degree that may drive a woman to commit suicide. 6

In the case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra7, this Honble Court held, It is
not every such harassment but only in the event of such a harassment being with a view to coerce
her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Also, there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of
explanation.

In the case of Sankar Prosad Shaw v. State8, the Honble Calcutta High Court held, Although
in common parlance one very often uses the term dowry demand in the cases where the
husband or his relations demand valuable security from the parents and other relations of the
wife after the marriage, yet this will not amount to demand for dowry under the Act in view of
the definition of dowry contained in Section 2 of the Act. Demand for dowry under the Act and
in the legal sense will mean the demand for dowry only when it refers to property of valuable
security given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage.

There is no corroborate evidence to prove if any property or valuable security was given by the
deceased family in marriage or if there was any agreement regarding the same. In fact, the
valuables given were are in the form of gifts as their daughter was shifting to a new home. It was
simply a gift to their daughter and her husband as a token of love.

The evidence of mother, being a relative and partisan witness, does not constitute a wholly
reliable evidence. There is a serious possibility of her deposition to be influenced by emotions
and grief of the loss of her daughter. As a result, deposition by such a witness against the accused

6 Savitri Devi v. Rramesh Chand, (2003) Cr LJ 2759 (Del)

7 AIR 2002 SC 2078

8 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

lacks credibility and does not prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of a
partisan witness has to be analysed with care and scrutiny.9

Finally, conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, together with his family, under Section 498A of
the IPC and Section304Bof the Dowry Prohibition Act is based only upon circumstantial
evidences including inconsistent dying declarations, a doubtful letter and unreliable depositions,
which fail to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction should be
overruled.

9 Dhanraj Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920