NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

KERWA DAM ROAD

BHOPAL

TRIMESTER: I TRIMESTER

SESSION: 2014 – 2015

SUBJECT: COMMON LAW METHOD

AN ANALYSIS OF

MANGAT RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED

BY:

DR. GHAYUR ALAM VARNIKA

TAYA

2014BALLB87
 CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. Facts of the case
3. Material facts
4. Immaterial facts
5. Concrete judgement
6. Ratio Decidendi
7. Obiter Dicta
 INTRODUCTION

An attempt has been made to do an analysis of the case “Mangat Ram vs State of Haryana”
(MANU/SC/0238/2014) in the parameters given below:-

 Facts of the Case

 Material facts
 Immaterial facts
 Concrete judgement
 Ratio Decidendi
 Obiter Dicta
 MANGAT RAM VS STATE OF HARYANA
MANU/SC/0238/2014

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Vikramajit Sen, JJ

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. The Appellant Mangat Ram, a member of SC community, married the deceased
Seema, a member of the Aggarwal community on 13.7.1993 at Ambala.
2. Deceased’s maternal grandfather was not happy with this inter-caste marriage and had
agreed only because deceased was adamant to marry the Appellant.
3. He had even gone to Madhuban prior to the marriage to dissuade the Appellant from
entering into such a marriage and, for the said purpose, he met the DSP, Madhuban,
who then called Mangat Ram, but he was adamant to marry Seema.
4. After the marriage Seema used to live with Mangat’s parents while he was posted out.
5. Seema was homesick and used to write to his grandfather asking him to come and
meet her. She even promised to give her life in case her grandfather could not come to
meet her.
6. In her letters there was always a mention of “an important work” but she never
mentioned any harassment or dowry demanded by the Appellant or his family
members.
7. The deceased was suffering from Epilepsy and was under treatment from 23.12.1992
to 2.4.1993 at Kuldeep Hospital, Ambala City.
8. Few months after the marriage, the neighbours heard the hue and cry from the house
of Mangat Ram. They found Seema getting burned.
9. At the time of the incident Mangat Ram was posted at Madhuban, Karnal.
10. They took her to the Civil Hospital, Gohana and, later, she was shifted to the Medical
College and Hospital, Rohtak, where she died on 17.9.1993.
11. The Appellant, along with his parents and sister, were charge-sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code.
12. After the evidence was closed, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure.), who denied all the
incriminating statements made against him.
13. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the
conclusion that an offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code was made out
against the Appellant, but not against the other three accused persons.
14. The trial Court also found that no offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code was
made out against the accused persons, including the Appellant. However, it was held
that an offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code was made out against the
Appellant, though no charge was framed under that section.
15. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court, the Appellant
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997, which when came up for hearing
before the Division Bench of the High Court on 3.5.2007.
16. The Appellant’s case was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred SLP (Criminal) No. 7578 of
2007 which was later converted into Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2008. The criminal
appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 25.1.2008 and this Court deprecated
the practice of the High Court in disposing of the criminal appeals without recording
reasons in support of its decision.
MATERIAL FACTS:

1. The marriage was an inter-caste marriage which took place on 13.7.1993. The
maternal grandfather of the deceased was sincerely against it but had agreed only for
the happiness of his granddaughter.
 This shows that the grandfather of deceased was not at all happy with his
marriage and didn’t accept the Appellant as his son-in-law.

2. The deceased was suffering from Epilepsy and was under treatment from 23.12.1992
to 2.4.1993.
 The deceased was not well prior the incident. It cannot be ruled out that the
incident may have been the result of one of the fits of epilepsy.

3. Seema died of burn injuries on 17.9.1993. At the time of incident she was at her
matrimonial house and her husband was posted away.
 The Appellant was not at his home when the incident took place, so, it cannot
be established that he had any major role in the occurrence of the incident.

4. Seema was homesick and used to write to his grandfather asking him to come and
meet her. She even promised to give her life in case her grandfather could not come to
meet her.
 Seema used to miss her grandfather and other relatives. She was homesick but
it cannot be derived that she was not happy at her matrimonial house or was in
depression.

5. In her letters she never mentioned any harassment or dowry demanded by the
Appellant or his family members.
 There was never a mention of any kind of harassment or dowry demand which
shows that there was no pressure on Seema from the appellant or his family
members.
IMMATERIAL FACTS:

1. The deceased was receiving treatment for the disease at Kuldeep Hospital, Ambala
City.
 The place (hospital) where the treatment was taking place has no relevance
whatsoever.

2. When the neighbours heard the hue and cry, they took her to the Civil Hospital,
Gohana and, later, she was shifted to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak,
where she died.
 The name of the hospital where Seema died also doesn’t hold any relevance to
the case.

3. The Appellant, along with his parents and sister, were charge-sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code.
 This fact has no effect on the judgement of the case.

4. Though no offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code was made out against the
accused persons, including the Appellant, an offence under Section 498A Indian
Penal Code was made out against the Appellant, but not against the other three
accused persons.
 The judgement of the case would not at all depend on this fact. The higher
court will have to look up in law and check the interpretation of law.

5. It was held that an offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code was made out against
the Appellant, though no charge was framed under that section.
 This fact has no effect on the judgement of the case.
CONCRETE JUDGEMENT:

It was decided that the prosecution had not succeeded in establishing the offence under
Section 498A and Section 306 Indian Penal Code against the Appellant. Consequently, the
appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and
confirmed by the High Court, were set aside.
RATIO DECIDENDI:

The prosecution was unable to prove that it was a homicidal death; moreover the
prosecution could not prove that the Appellant was at home when the incident had
happened. As said, there was no evidence of any kind of dowry demand or harassment
faced by the deceased. From the letters it can be inferred that she was homesick and
wanted to meet her grandfather. The failure of a married person to take his wife along with
him to the place where he is working or posted, would not amount to cruelty leading to
abetment of committing suicide by the wife. The mere fact that if a married woman
commits suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under
Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply, the circumstances of the
case pointed out by the prosecution are totally insufficient to hold that the accused had
abetted his wife to commit suicide and the circumstances enumerated under
Section 113A of the Evidence Act have also not been satisfied.
OBITER DICTA:

It is wrong on the part of the lower courts to conclude that if the Appellant knew that the
deceased was suffering from Epilepsy, he would not have married her. The present court
failed to see how the failure of a married person to take his wife along with him to the
place where he is working or posted, would amount to cruelty leading to abetment of
committing suicide by the wife. The reasoning of the High Court that no prudent man will
commit suicide unless abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse reasoning. A woman
may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial
difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments
and so on and need not be due to abetment.