LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

vinod bansal (lawyer)     22 November 2010

Landmark direction/judgment related to all cases u/s 304 B I

 

ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2010

CRLMP.NO(s). 23051

(From the judgement and order dated 21/01/2010 in CRLA No. 505/2001

of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

RAJBIR @ RAJU & ANR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP)

Date: 22/11/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.P. Mohanty,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Issue notice to petitioner No.1 why his sentence be

not enhanced to life sentence as awarded by the trial Court.

Issue notice to the respondent-State regarding

petitioner No.2.

In the meantime, petitioner No.2 only is ordered to

be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court

in connection with case arising from FIR No. 279 of 1998

dated 4.9.1998, P.S. Sadar Rohtak.

We further direct all trial Courts in India to

ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of section 304B, so

that death sentences can be imposed in such heinous and

barbaric crimes against women.

Copy of this order be sent to Registrar

Generals/Registrars of all High Courts, which will circulate

it to all trial Courts.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla)

Court Master

( Indu Satija )

Court Master

[Reportable Signed Order is placed on the file]

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL CRL NO......../2010

(Crl.MP No. 23051/2010)

Rajbir @ Raju & Another ..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana ..Respondent

O R D E R

Delay of 158 days in filing the special leave

petition is condoned.

The petitioner No.1 Rajbir(husband) was found guilty

of murdering his pregnant wife Sunita for demanding cash

amount barely 6 months after their marriage. He was

awarded life sentence under Section 304 B, IPC, apart from

sentences under other sections. The Punjab & Haryana High

Court has reduced the sentence to 10 years rigorous

imprisonment. Petitioner No.2(mother of Rajbir) was

awarded two years rigorous imprisonment.

We fail to see why the High Court has reduced the

sentence of petitioner No.1 Rajbir. It appears to be a

case of barbaric and brutal murder. This is borne out by

the injuries which are in the evidence of Doctor, PW 2,

which are as follows:

“1. A diffused contusion radish in colour on

right side of face extending between left half of

both lips and upto right pinna.

And from the zygomatic area to right angle

mandible. On dis-section underline tissue was

found Ecchymosed.

2. On right side of neck, a diffused

contusion 3.5 cm x 2.5 cm situated 2.5 cm

-2-

posterior inferior to right angle of mandible.

On dis-section underlying area was Ecchmosed.

3. A contusion size of 7.5 cm x 5 cm over

left side of neck just below angle of mandible.

Underlying area on dissection was Ecchymesed.

4. Multiple reddish contusion of various

sizes from 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm to 1 cm x 0.5 cm on

both lips including an area of 6 x 4 cms. On

dissection, underlying area was Ecchymesed.

5. A laceration of size of 1.5 cm x 1 cm

present inside the lower lip corresponding to

lower incisor tooth and all of the neck on both

sides below thyroid bone was found Echhymesed on

dis-section.

Scalp and skull were healthy. Uterus

contained a male foetus of four months.

Cause of death in our opinion was due to

smothering and throttling which was ante-mortem

in nature and was sufficient to cause death in

ordinary course of nature.”

The above injuries, prima facie, indicate that the

deceased Sunita's head was repeatedly struck and she was

also throttled.

We have recently held in the case of Satya Narayan

Tiwari @ Jolly & Another vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal

No.1168 of 2005 decided on 28th October, 2010 that this

Court is going to take a serious view in the matters of

crimes against women and give harsh punishment.

This view was reiterated by us in another special

leave petition in the case of Sukhdev Singh & Another vs.

State of Punjab and we issued notice to the petitioner as

to why his life sentence be not enhanced to death sentence.

Issue notice to petitioner No.1 why his sentence be

not enhanced to life sentence as awarded by the trial

Court.

As regards petitioner No.2 (Mother of petitioner

-3-

No.1), it is alleged that she is about 80 years of age.

Issue notice to the respondent-State regarding

petitioner No.2.

In the meantime, petitioner No.2 only is ordered to

be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court

in connection with case arising from FIR No. 279 of 1998

dated 4.9.1998, P.S. Sadar Rohtak.

We further direct all trial Courts in India to

ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of section 304B,

so that death sentences can be imposed in such heinous and

barbaric crimes against women.

Copy of this order be sent to Registrar

Generals/Registrars of all High Courts, which will

circulate it to all trial Courts.

.........................J.

[MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; .........................J.

NOVEMBER 22, 2010 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]



Learning

 5 Replies


(Guest)

good work sir. keep it posting like this

RAKHI BUDHIRAJA ADVOCATE (LAWYER AT BUDHIRAJA & ASSOCIATES SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)     24 November 2010

Actually excellent!

Ravikant Soni (LAWYER IN JAIPUR)     04 July 2011

really there was a need of such type of judgement.

 

v.b.b.sastry (Sr.A.P.P)     18 July 2012

Searching for this ruling.

A1981 (abc)     18 July 2012

Personally I do not agree with the view of adding 302..

If it is murder then prosecute the offender as 302 right? why 304-B in addition 

read the subject the line "Related to all cases u/s 304-B"

@ How did you get the impression that this relates to all 304-B if so remove 304-B from IPC.. that is how the whole system gets misleaded by these fancy inferences... do you know the cases are their where woman found alive enjoying with the BF and whole family was in jail including the husband.... do we want hang all people facing these cases with the help of pre-assumption

 

And regarding the judgement ... when the false cases come in front of the same authority, it says, we cann't do any thing it is the law that way and lawmakers are responisble for this .


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading