Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !

$#%

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE :The accused/ appellant Lichhamadevi was charged under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for burning her daughter in law Pushpa! The case being triable onl" b" Court of Session# $s per Schedule I of Code of Criminal Procedure% &'(3)% the Sessions Court of *aipur ac+uitted Lichhamadevi! ,pon appeal b" the State% the -igh Court of *aipur reversed the order of Lower Court and sentenced her to death! The matter then went to the -on.ble Supreme Court of India unser $rticle &3/#&)#a) of the Constitution of India against the 0udgment of 1a0asthan -igh Court given on 20th 2ovember &'33!

FACTS OF THE CASE:1. Pushpa was the daughter of Sita 1am #P4 ')! She was married to *agdish Prasad s/o Smt! Lichhamadevi #the accused)! It is said that the relations between Pushpa and her mother in law #the appellant) had become strained on account of unsatisfied dowr" demand! 5verbearing mother in law appears to be the master of the house! She used to harass Pushpa +uite often To avoid harassment% Pushpa left her husband6s house and remained with her parents! $bout / 7 da"s before the unfortunate incident she returned from her parents house to her in law6s house! 2. 5n 2' *anuar" &'((% at about / 7 p!m! Pushpa was cleaning utensils on the roof of the house! It is said that the appellant lifted one pan and struc8 over the forehead of Pushpa causing in0ur" and e9pressing at the same time that she felt li8e burning her alive! In the same night at about 3 56cloc8 the neighbours saw the flames coming out of tin shed which was used as 8itchen of the house! 5n 2' *anuar"% &'(( she was found with flames in the 8itchen! ,pon hearing her pathetic cries% the neighbours rushed! 2one of her relatives of the deceased rushed towards the 8itchen to save the deceased! 3. 2eighbours also heard a cr" 6bachao6 6bachao6! :hanwarlal #P4 3) who was the ne9t neighbour shouted and attracted others who all rushed and found that the doors of the 8itchen were closed with an iron chain fastened from outside! ;ums and fire were billowing out of the 8itchen! <in <a"al #P4 /)% Lalit =ishore #P4 7) and Sushil =umar #P4 >) tried to enter the room! 5ne of them removed the iron chain and opened the door! The" found a woman in flames! The" too8 her outside and found that she was Pushpa! She needed urgent &

Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !$#%

medical attention! The" called the Lichhamadevi #accused/ appellant) and *agdish but the" refused to associate themselves! Thereupon% Lalit =ishore too8 Pushpa to Swami ?an Singh -ospital and got her admitted in an emergenc" ward! 4. <r! @oel #P4 &)% who admitted Pushpa in the hospital found that Pushpa was in a critical condition! The <octor advised that she needed blood transfusion! Lalit =ishore returned home and conve"ed to the inmates what the <octor said! The accused/appellant came out with her barbaric attitude and appears to have told *agdish not to arrange blood to Pushpa! Pushpa breathed her last at about &0 a!m! on the ne9t da"! 5. Pushpa% before her death was% said to have stated at about 7!30 a!m! that her mother in law poured 8erosene on her and set fire! It was recorded as A9! P!72 b" Sop Singh #P4 &/) and attested b" two other witnesses! Similar statements were also alleged to have been made b" Pushpa to her father and to <r! @oel! 6. <r! @oel conducted the post mortem e9amination and found the following in0uries on the person of the deceased B &st% 2nd and 3rd degree superficial burns with line of redness and blac8ening of S8in% signing of the fairs% peeling of the superficial s8in involving scalp% face% both upper e9tremities% nec8% chest front% and bac8 of chest% abdomen% bac8 both lower e9tevities! $ccording to the <octor% all the burns were ante mortem in nature! -e has opined that the cause of death was severe burns% which were sufficient in the ordinar" course of nature to cause death!

ISS&ES BEFORE THE CO&RT:&! 4hether the appeal of Lichhamadevi #accused/ appellant) be allowed and the decision of the -on6ble -igh Court of 1a0asthan be set asideC 2! If the appeal is disallowed what should be the sentence of imprisonmentC

CHAR'ES:The Sessions Court of *aipur tried Lichhamadevi #accused/ appellant) for the offense under Section 302 Indian Penal Code% &3>0 for the murder of Pushpa% her daughter in law! ?adan% the elder brother in law of the deceased was alleged b" Lichhamadevi #accused/appellant) to have committed the murder of Puspha and was also seen b" the neighbours behind the

Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !$#%

8itchen and running down stairs at the time when Pushpa was in flames inside! The Police% however% did not prosecute him! *agdish the husband of Pushpa% was a silent spectator for all the dastardl" attac8 on his wife! -e had not even the courtes" to ta8e his wife to the hospital! -e did not even ma8e arrangement for securing blood when Pushpa was struggling for life! -e positivel" dissociated himself as if he had nothing to do with Pushpa! -is tacit understanding with those who have perpetrated the crime is so apparent that it could not have been ignored! Det he was not charge sheeted! Therefore% onl" Lichhamadevi was prosecuted for the offense under section 302 of Indian Penal Code% &3>0! The occurrence being of the year 1977, the only charge of the Indian Penal Code under which the accused/appellant could be prosecuted was Section 3 ! I"P"C" and not under Section 3 #$ %&owry &eath' as the said pro(ision relating to )&owry &eath* was added to the Code only in 19+, by (irtue of -.end.ent -ct of 19+," -fter the insertion of Section 3 #$ in the code, all .urders of brides and perprated by her husband or in/laws which were earlier co(ered under Section 3 ! are now co(ered under Section 3 #$"

EVI(E)CE LE( BY THE *ROSEC&TIO) :!. +edica, Evidence: P4&% <r! @oel treated Pushpa when she was ta8en to the Swami ?an Singh -ospital b" Lalit =ishore% P47! The <octor found that she was in critical condition!Thereafter the doctor conducted the post mortem and found the following in0uries on the person of deceased B &st% 2nd and 3rd degree superficial burns with line of redness and blac8ening of S8in% signing of the fairs% peeling of the superficial s8in involving scalp% face% both upper e9tremities% nec8% chest front% and bac8 of chest% abdomen% bac8 both lower e9tremities! $ccording to the <octor% all the burns were ante mortem in nature! -e has opined that the cause of death was severe burns% which were sufficient in the ordinar" course of nature to cause death! -. Statements .f the */.sec0ti.n 1itnesses :-

Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !$#%

*1" Sita Ram 2Victim3s Fathe/4: The submission of the prosecution that Pushpa #the victim) was sub0ect to constant harassment b" the appellant and her husband for satisf"ing the dowr" demands is undisputed! P4'% victim.s father has testified the events leading to her death! -e has stated that6 Pushpa left her husband6s house and remained with him to avoid cruelt" from her in laws6s house! 5nl" / 7 da"s before the unfortunate incident she returned bac8 from her father6s house! *15 Bhan6a/,a, : :hanwarlal #P4 3) %the ne9t neighbor% after seeing the fumes and flames coming out of the tin shed% ran towards the doors of the 8itchen and found that the door was closed with an iron chain fastened from outside! (in (a7a, 2*1 84 La,it 9ish./e 2*1 %4 and S0shi, 90ma/ 2*1 :4 : P4/% P47% P4> have testified that the" bro8e the chain used to close the door of 8itchen from outside and found a woman in flames! The" have also testified that when the" too8 the woman outside and turned her% the" realiEed that she was Pushpa! Thereafter% when the" called the appellant and *agdish to ta8e Pushpa to hospital% the" clearl" refused to associate themselves! *1% La,it 9ish./e : P47 too8 Pushpa to the hospital where she was admitted to the emergenc" ward! The doctor treating her% P4& told P47 to arrange for blood! 4hen P47 conve"ed the same to the appellant% the appellant behaved with her barbaric attitude and appears to have told *agdish not to arrange blood for Pushpa! *1! (/. '.e, : P4& has deposed that upon his +uestioning% Pushpa told him that her mother in law had burnt her! 5. (.c0menta/7 Evidence : E;. *.%- : -

Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !$#%

4hen the victim was ta8en to hospital and the doctor +uestioned him% Pushpa said that her mother in law poured 8erosene on her and set her on fire! This statement of Pushpa was recorded as A9! P!72 b" Sop Singh% P4 &/ and attested b" two other witnesses! Similar statements were also made to victim.s father!

AR'&+E)TS BY THE *ROSEC&TIO) : The learned counsel for the prosecution has submitted that the fact that Pushpa was being harassed b" the accused and her husband for not satisf"ing dowr" demands% is undisputed! :ecause of the on going dispute in the famil"% she had left the house of her in laws and went to her father.s house! This statement is corroborated b" the testimon" of the P4'% father of victim! The prosecution has also argued that onl" neighbors brought Pushpa to the hospital and none of the relatives of Pushpa has accompanied them! The statement of the P4&% <r! @oel who received Pushpa at the hospital% corroborates this! ;urthermore% accused had also blatantl" refused to help arrange blood for the victim! :oth these facts casts huge doubt on the act and conduct of the accused/appellant! ;urther% the counsel for the prosecution contented that the fact that the 8itchen doors were closed and fastened from outside itself is an indication that the appellant and her famil" members were solel" responsible for this crime! The learned counsel also submitted that% the statement made b" Pushpa% the victim that her mother in law threw 8erosene on her and put her on fire% though is not recorded as a d"ing declaration% but is one made to the doctor treating her and also recorded b" the P4 &/% Sop Singh% the investigating officer! The -igh Court has not re0ected it and has placed reliance on it while convicting the accused/appellant!

SHORTCO+I)'S I) THE I)VESTI'ATIO) : The investigation in this case did not proceed as it ought to and there appears to be soft pedaling of the whole case! <uring investigation the appellant has herself stated that her son ?adan might have burnt Pushpa! -e is the elder brother of *agdish! ?adan was also seen b" the neighbors behind the 8itchen and running down stairs at the time when Pushpa was in flames inside! The Police% however% did not prosecute him! 7

Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !$#%

*agdish the husband of Pushpa appears to have no human +ualities! -e was a silent spectator for all the dastardl" attac8 on his wife! -e had not even the courtes" to ta8e his wife to the hospital! -e did not even ma8e arrangement for securing blood when Pushpa was struggling for life! -e positivel" dissociated himself as if he had nothing to do with Pushpa! -is tacit understanding with those who have perpetrated the crime is so apparent that it could not have been ignored! Det he was not charge sheeted! This indifferent attitude of the investigating agenc" should be deprecated!

(ECISIO) OF THE CO&RT : ISS&E )O: !::: 1hethe/ the a<<ea, .f Lichhamadevi 2acc0sed= a<<e,,ant4 >e a,,.6ed and the decisi.n .f the H.n?>,e Hi@h C.0/t .f Rajasthan >e set asideA The -on.ble Supreme Court after carefull" e9amining the material on record and in the light of the arguments addressed b" counsel on both sides held that there cannot be an" dispute that Pushpa was sub0ect to constant harassment b" the appellant and her husband for not satisf"ing the dowr" demands! Sita 1am #P4 ') the father of Pushpa has testified the events leading to her death! -e has stated that Pushpa left her husband6s house and remained with him to avoid cruelt" from her in laws. house! 5nl" / 7 da"s before the unfortunate incident she returned bac8 from her father6s house! <in <a"al% Lalit =ishore and Sushil =umar are neighbours of the appellant! Their evidence is mutuall" corroborating! The" have deposed that when the" heard the cr" inside the 8itchen 6bachao bachao6% the" rushed to the place along with :hanwar Lal #P4 3)! The" found the doors of 8itchen were closed with an iron chain from outside! It was Sushil =umar who removed the chain and opened the doors! Pushpa was ta8en out! She was found to be in a critical condition! The neighbours re+uested the appellant and her relatives to ta8e Pushpa to hospital but none came forward to e9tend an" assistance! It was Lalit =ishore who too8 Pushpa to the hospital and got her admitted! <r! @oel who received Pushpa and admitted her in the emergenc" ward has testified that neighbors brought Pushpa and no relative accompanied her! -e has stated that Pushpa was in a serious condition! -e has deposed that upon his +uestioning% Pushpa told him that her mother in law had burnt her! It is true that <r! @oel has not recorded this statement in the medical register but that is no ground to disbelieve him! <r! @oel is a disinterested person! The -igh Court >

Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !$#%

has accepted his version and we have no reason to re0ect it! <r! @oel himself has treated the victim! Therefore% there was no +uestion of finding out from the <octor whether Pushpa was in a position to give her statement or not! ?oreover% the statement before the <octor was not recorded as a d"ing declaration! It was a communication b" the patient to the <octor who treated! -e is a @overnment <octor on dut" in the hospital at that time! 2othing has been elicited from his cross e9amination that he was interested in or enemicall" disposed towards the appellant! The statement of <r! @oel is corroborated b" the A9!P2 recorded b" Sop Singh #P4 &/)! Sop Singh was the first Investigating 5fficer! -e has stated that Pushpa was not found to be conscious when he first observed her at about &0 56cloc8 and again at 2!30 in the night! -e remained nearb" the hospital throughout that night! $t about 7 a!m! in the morning when he reached the hospital he found 1amesh Chandra #P4 2) and Lallu Lal #P4 &3) were sitting beside Pushpa and tr"ing to awa8e her! 4hen the" called 6Pushpa Pushpa6 she became conscious and when +uestioned she replied that her mother in law after pouring 8erosene oil lighted fire on her! -e recorded that statement and obtained the signatures of P4 2 and P4 &3! That in fact formed the basis of the ;I1 in this case! There is no reason to discard the testimon" of 1amesh Chander and Lallu Lal! The evidence of these witnesses clearl" indicates that Pushpa was conscious at the time when she uttered those words which were recorded b" Sop Singh! Their evidence receives full corroboration from Sita 1am% the father of Pushpa! -e rushed to the hospital and saw his daughter struggling for life! -e called 6Pushpa6 Pushpa Pushpa6! She once responded and as8ed for water! -e tried to ta8e water from a nearb" patient! :ut the patient told him that the <octor has advised not to give water! -e saw Pushpa with restlessness! -e assured Pushpa that water would be brought to her! -e has stated that on his further en+uir"% Pushpa told him that her mother in law had put 8erosene and burnt her! It is true that there is no d"ing declaration properl" recorded in this case but the statement A9!P! 2 recorded b" Sop Singh and proved b" the testimon" of 1amesh Chander and Lallu Lal can be ta8en for the purpose of corroboration of the prosecution version! The evidence of <r! @oel cannot be doubted and indeed it is worth" of acceptance in to! The evidence of <in <a"al% Lalit =ishore% Sushil =umar practicall" remains unchallenged! There is e+uall" no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Sita 1am! The -on.ble Court reached to the conclusion that it was undoubtedl" a dastardl" and (

Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !$#%

diabolic murder! The fact that the 8itchen doors were closed and fastened from outside itself is an indication that the appellant and her famil" members were solel" responsible for this crime! Therefore% the Court held that the appellant has been rightl" convicted!

ISS&E )O: - ::: If the a<<ea, is disa,,.6ed 6hat sh.0,d >e the sentence .f im</is.nmentA $fter the Court reached the conclusion that the appellant has been rightl" convicted% the ne9t +uestion before it was as to what sentence should be awarded to the accused/appellant! The Court made the following observations B The Supreme Court discussed landmar8 cases such as :achan Singh v! State of Pun0ab etc! wherein it had discussed ver" comprehensivel" as to which case fits under the categor" of Frarest of rare. so as to attract death penalt" for the accused! The Court finall" reached the conclusion that the present case is not a fit case for awarding death penalt"! There are a no of reasons for the same! ;irstl"% there is no direct evidence that the appellant threw 8erosene on the victim and put fire on her! Secondl"% there must have other people besides the appellant who were involved in the act% but unfortunatel" the" were not present before the Court! The Supreme Court also held that from the 0udgment of the -igh Court% it is apparent that the decision to award death sentence is more out of anger than on reasons! The 0udicial discretion should not be allowed to be swa"ed b" emotions and indignation! Therefore% the Court allowed the appeal in part% set aside the death sentence awarded to the appellant% and instead sentenced her to imprisonment for life!

CRITICAL A**RAISAL : The <ivision :ench of *ustice @ 5Ea and *ustice = * Shett" has rightl" convicted the accused/appellant! The bench has appreciated all the evidences put before it! The bench found the statements of all the prosecution witnesses corroborating with each other! ;urthermore% the bench also paid heed to the statement made b" the victim to the doctor% even though it was not recorded as a d"ing declaration! ;urthermore% when the bench had to decide the +uantum of punishment% landmar8 0udgments such as :achan Singh v! State of Pun0ab and reached the conclusion that the present case does not fall under the categor" of 3

Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !$#%

Frarest of rare cases. and hence awarding death penalt" to the accused/appellant is not proper and therefore awarded life imprisonment

LATEST B&('+E)TS : $ra0nandan Choudhary v.State of $ihar, -C!-2$4 R.C.R.2C/imina,4 !--# 2*atna4 2(.B4 ;$CTS 5; T-A C$SAB

The accused persons were convicted under Section 302 and Section 30/: b" the Sessions Court for 8illing the bride for not satisf"ing dowr" demands! The" were also charged under Section 20&for causing disappearance of the bod" of the victim! The case then went to the -igh Court for appeal against conviction! *,<@?A2T 5; T-A C5,1T B

The -on.ble -igh Court held that the conviction under Section 30/: Indian Penal Code is not proper and the said Section was not on the statute boo8 at the time of commission of the offence and hence the conviction be set aside! The -igh Court then remanded the case bac8 to the lower Court to frame charges under Section 302 and Section 3/ of the Indian Penal Code! S.t" &arshana 1ani v. State of Pun0ab -C!!2-4 RCR C/imina, %-! *DH ;$CTS 5; T-A C$SA B

The victim stated in her d"ing declaration that she has been burnt b" throwing 8erosene on her and then putting her on fire! :ut nowhere in the declaration% the names of people who burnt her were mentioned! The Sessions Court convicted all the members of famil" to life imprisonment! The case then went in for appeal to the -igh Court and the prosecution demaned death penalt" to be awarded to the accused members of the famil"!

'

Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !$#%

*,<@?A2T 5; T-A C5,1T B

The -igh Court held that awarding death penalt" is not proper in this case and awarding life imprisonment is proper because there is no direct evidence against all the members of the famil" and the" are being convicted because the" could not dicharge the onus upon them b" virtue of Section 30/: of the Indian Penal Code!

E)ACT+E)T OF )E1 LA1 : :efore the $mendment $ct of &'3>% all murders whether involving an" newl" wedded bride or an" other person were covered under Section 302% Indian Penal Code! The Code before the "ear &'3> had no special provision for the death of brides at the hands of her husband or in laws and as such the" were considered li8e an" other murder! :ut the '& st Law Commission 1eport% &'33 provided for insertion of a special provision in the Indian Penal Code relating to the death of married woman at the hands of her husband and in laws! The report was prepared owing to the considerable increase in the murder cases involving married women! Though the Code before the amendment had provision under Section 302 to prosecute the person accused of murder% but still a no of them were ac+uitted because of the shortcoming in the e9isting law! Therefore% need was felt to insert a special provision in favor of women to curb the immoral act of dowr" death! Section 304B reads as : 1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marria e and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for! or in connection with! any demand for dowry! such death shall be called" dowry death"! and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death# $%&lanation- 'or the &ur&oses of this sub- section!" dowry" shall have the same meanin as in section ( of the )owry *rohibition +ct! 1,-1 .(/ of 1,-1 )# () Whoever commits dowry death shall be &unished with im&risonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may e%tend to im&risonment for life#

&0

Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !$#%

STATISTICS : 4omen have been victim of a number of crimes since ages! :esides pett" crimes% she has suffered barbaric crimes too such as murder% theft% robber"% dowr" death etc! The Legislature has tried to enact new laws and amend the e9isting laws to bring them in pace with the changing circumstances to favor women! :ut this has done no good to the fairer se9! The no! of reported crimes against women have increased ever" "ear% irrespective of the huge steps ta8en b" govt to curb them! $ total of 2%23%>70 incidents of crime against women #both under IPC and SLL) were reported in the countr" during the "ear 20&& as compared to 2%&3%737 incidences in the "ear 20&0 recording an increase of (!&G during the "ear 20&&! These crimes have continuousl" increased during 200( 20&& with &%37%3&2 cases in the "ear 200(% &%'7%37> cases in the "ear 2003% 2%03%30/ cases in the "ear 200' and 2%&3%737 cases in the "ear 20&0 and 2%23%>70 cases in the "ear 20&&! The author here is trying to throw so.e light on the cases of dowry deaths against wo.en reported in the year ! 11" The pie chart& below depicts the no! of reported cases of dowr" deaths in India in the "ear 20&&!

&

<ata ta8en from the 2ational Crimes 1ecords :ureauB ?inistr" of -ome $ffairs!

&&

Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !$#%

The above pie chart clearl" depicts that in the "ear 20&& alone out of total crimes against women% dowr" deaths have contributed to the tune of 3!3G and the ma0orit" contribution is b" FCruelt" b" husband and his relatives.! The latter part is dealt in b" Section /'3$ of the Indian Penal Code! $ctuall"% the cases of dowr" deaths are preceded b" cases of FCruelt" b" husband and his relatives.! It is because of the efforts of the government that most of the incidents against brides do not end up in dowr" deaths and the government agencies come to the rescue of brides at the earlier stage itself!

RE*ORTE( I)CI(E)TS OF (O1RY (EATHS- STATE1ISE

The following table shows the no of reported incidents of crimes in 3 different states of India namel" B -ar"ana% Pun0ab% Chandigarh! State=&.T. Chandi@a/h *0nja> Ha/7ana -CC" 2 &2> 23& -C!C 7 &2& 23/ -C!! 2 &/3 227

&2

Lichhamadevi V. State Of Rajasthan AIR !"## SC !$#%

The cases of <owr" <eaths have increased b" 2!(G during the "ear 20&& over the previous "ear #3%3'&cases)! 2>!'G of the total such cases reported in the countr" were reported from ,ttar Pradesh #2%322 cases) alone followed b" :ihar #&%/&3 cases) #&>!/G)! The highest rate of crime #&!/) was reported from :ihar as compared to the 2ational average of 0!(!

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

&3