{"id":38362,"date":"1998-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998"},"modified":"2016-10-01T11:36:25","modified_gmt":"2016-10-01T06:06:25","slug":"pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998","title":{"rendered":"Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: A.P.Misra<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji, A.P. Misra<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPAWAN KUMAR & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/02\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nCJI, A.P. MISRA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t       THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998
\nPresent :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Hon’ble the Chief Justice
\n\t\t Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P.Misra
\nU.R.Lalit, Sr.\tAdv., Manoj  Swarup and\t Sudhir Walia, Advs.
\nwith him for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Prem Malhotre and Altaf Hussain, Advs. for the Respondent
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\nA.P.MISRA, J.\n<\/p>\n
     For more  than a  century, inspite\t of  tall  words  of
\nrespect for  women, there  has been  an onslaught  on  their
\nliberties through  `bride burning’  and `dowry deaths’. This
\nhas caused  anxiety to\tthe legislators,  judiciary and\t law
\nenforcing agencies,  who have  attempted to  resurrect\tthem
\nfrom  this   social  choke.   There  have   been  series  of
\nlegislations in\t this regard,  without much effect. This led
\nto the\tpassing of Dowry Prohibition Act in 1961. Inspite of
\nthis, large  number of\t`brides burning’  and  dowry  deaths
\ncontinued. To  meet this, stringent measures were brought in
\nthe  Indian   Penal  Code   and\t the  Evidence\tAct  through
\namendments. It\tseems, sections\t of society are still boldly
\npursuing this  chronic action to fulfil their greedy desire.
\nInspite of  stringent legislations,  such persons  are still
\nindulging in  these unlawful  activities, not because of any
\nshortcomings in\t law but  under the  protective principle of
\ncriminal jurisprudence\tof benefit of doubt. Often, innocent
\npersons\t are  also  trapped  or\t brought  in  with  ulterior
\nmotives. This  places  an  arduous  duty  on  the  Court  to
\nseparate such  individuals from\t the  offenders.  Hence\t the
\nCourts have  to deal  such cases  with\tcircumvention,\tsift
\nthrough\t the   evidence\t  with\t caution,   scrutinise\t the
\ncircumstances with  utmost care.  The present  matter is one
\nsuch where  similar questions  have been  raised,  including
\nquestion of interpretation of the stringent law.\n<\/p>\n
     The three\tappellants were\t convicted for offence under
\nSections 306,  498-A and  304-B IPC.  Appellant No. 1 is the
\ndeceased’s husband,  No. 2  the father-in-law, and No, 3 the
\nmother-in-law respectively.  The trial\tcourt convicted\t and
\nsentenced appellant No.1 for offence under section 304-B for
\n10 years  and a fine Rs. 500\/, under section 306 for 7 years
\nand a  fine of Rs. 200\/- and under section 498-A for 2 years
\nand a fne of Rs. 200\/. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted
\nand sentenced\tunder  section 304-B for 7 years with a fine
\nof Rs.\t500\/-, under  section 306 for 7 years with a fine of
\nRs. 200\/-  and under  section 498-A  IPC for  2 years with a
\nfine of\t Rs.  200\/-.  The  sentences  were  ordered  to\t run
\nconcurrently. The  High Court maintained the convictions but
\nreduced the  sentence form  10\tyears  to  7  years  so\t far
\nappellant No. 1 is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     The brief facts of the case are :\n<\/p>\n
     Urmil (deceased)  and appellant  No.1 were\t married  on
\n29th May,  1985. Appellant  No.1 was  working at Lucknow and
\nhad later  shifted to  Sonepat (Haryana).  According to\t the
\nprosecution case,  within a  few days  of the marriage Urmil
\nreturned home  and complained regarding demands of dowry for
\na refrigerator,\t scooter etc.  by appellants.  These demands
\nwere reiterated\t on subsequent\tvisits. On  account of\tnon-
\nfulfilment of  these demands,  the  deceased  was  allegedly
\ntortured and  harassed.\t These\talleged\t actions  ultimately
\ncontributed towards  a suicidal\t death. It is not in dispute
\nthat she died of burn injuries on 18th May, 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     In April  1987,  Tara  Chand,  maternal  uncle  of\t the
\ndeceased died.\tUrmil (deceased)  and Appellant No.1 went to
\nShahdara (Delhi) to offer condolences. From there, Appellant
\nNo.1 returned and Urmil went to her sister’s place in Delhi.
\nOn 17th\t May,  1987,  when  Appellant  No.  1  went  to\t the
\ndeceased’s sister’s place to bring Urmil (the deceased) back
\nto  Sonepat,   some  quarrel   took  place   between   them.
\nRegardless, Appellant  No. 1  brought back  the deceased  to
\nSonepat. The  very   next day  i.e. on\tthe 18th  May, 1987,
\naccording to  the appellants,  at 9.30\ta.m.  Joginder\tPal,
\n(neighbour of  the appellant)  came to\tappellant  No.2\t and
\ninformed him  that smoke was coming out from the room on the
\nfirst floor  of the  house. When  they reached\tthere,\tthey
\nfound Urmil  lying dead on the floor with burn injuries. The
\nroom was  full of  smoke. Later, the parents of the deceased
\narrived and  a post  mortem examination was conducted on the
\nbody of\t the deceased.\tThe doctor  found that\tthe cause of
\ndeath was  shock and  asphyxia as  a result of servere burns
\nwhich were  ante-mortem and  were sufficient to causes death
\nin the ordinary course of life.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  appellants vehemently  argued
\nwith vehemence\tthat even  if all the evidence on record was
\ntaken into  consideration, no  offence could be made out. No
\nclear finding  of suicide  had been recorded and in any case
\nessential ingredients  of Section 304-B of IPC were lacking.
\nThe evidence  against appellants  No.2&3 was  flimsy, and in
\nany case  their conviction  could not be sustained. Further,
\nthere was  no evidence\tthat  soon  before  her\t death,\t the
\ndeceased was  subjected to  cruelty or\tharassment for or in
\nconnection with\t any demand  of dowry. There was neither any
\ndemand of  dowry nor  was there any agreement at the time of
\nmarriage, which\t is an essential ingredient to constitute an
\noffence under  dowry death in terms of definition of `dowry’
\nas given  under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
\n(hereinafter referred to as `the 1961 Act’). Unless there is
\nan agreement  for dowry,  at the  time\tof  marriage  or  in
\nconnection with marriage, it would not qualify to be a dowry
\nwithin such definition, hence no offence under Section 304-B
\nI.P.C. Merely  expressing the grouse of asking for fridge or
\nTV would  not by  itself constitute to be a dowry within the
\nsaid definition\t in the\t absence of  any agreement. Further,
\nbefore applying\t the demand  clause under  Section 304-B the
\nevidence  has\tto  be\t within\t the   scope   of   criminal
\njurisprudence, i.e.  to prove  guilt beyond  all  reasonable
\ndoubt. It  cannot be  based merely on suspicion, conjectures
\nand surmises.\n<\/p>\n
     Let us see Section 304 I.P.C. The ingredients necessary
\nfor the application of Section 304-B are :-\n<\/p>\n
     [a]  When the  death of  a woman is caused by any burns
\n\t  or bodily injury, or
\n     [b]  occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances.
\n     [c]  and the aforesaid two facts springs within 7 years
\n\t  of girl’s marriage.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [d]  and soon  before her\tdeath, she  was subjected to
\n\t  cruelty  or  harassment  by  her  husband  or\t his
\n\t  relative.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [e]  this is in connection with the demand of dowry.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     If these  conditions exist, it would constitute a dowry
\ndeath; and  the husband and\/or his relatives shall be deemed
\nto have\t caused her death. In the present case, it is not in
\ndispute that  the deceased Urmil died of burn injuries, that
\nshe died otherwise than under normal circumstances, and that
\nthe death  was within  a period\t of 7 years of marriage. The
\nonly consideration  has to be : whether she was subjected to
\nany cruelty  or harassment by the appellants soon before her
\ndeath, and  whether the\t same was  for or in connection with
\nany demand  of dowry.  In support  of prosecution case, Smt.
\nMisro Devi,  mother of\tthe deceased,  PW-4  Trishala  Devi,
\nsister of  the deceased, PW-5 Prem Chand Jain, father of the
\ndeceased, PW-6\tRam Gopal,  brother-in-law of  the deceased,
\nhusband of  PW-5,PW-7  were  examined.\tOn  perusal  of\t the
\nevidence of  PW-4 we  find that\t the mother  of the deceased
\ndeposed that  within four  days following  the marriage, her
\ndaughter deceased  Urmil came  back to her and told her that
\nher parents-in-law and husband were subjecting her to taunts
\nfor not\t bringing a scooter and refrigerator as dowry at the
\ntime of\t marriage. She\tsomehow\t pacified  her\tdaughter  to
\nreturn. Urmil  came back after two months and again told her
\nmother that  her husband  in-laws were continuously taunting
\nher daily,  maltreating her  and calling  her ugly  for\t not
\nbringing the  aforesaid goods  as dowry.  Admittedly,  these
\ntaunts were  uttered in\t view of the lesser dowry brought by
\nher. Even  after giving\t birth to  a son, when she came back
\nshe again  narrated the continued maltreatment poured on her
\nby the\taccused. She  also deposed  that  Urmil\t wrote\tsome
\nletters from Sonepat to her at Calcutta and Hansi, but after
\ngoing through  them she\t tore  them  up.  Her  letters\talso
\nreferred to  the same  maltreatment and\t torture. Similarly,
\nPW-6, the  father of  the  deceased  also  referred  to\t the
\nsimilar complaints  made to  him by  Urmil. He\talso deposed
\nthat she  used to tell him that her husband and in-laws were
\nmaltreating and\t harassing her on account of not meeting the
\ndemand of    a\tscooter\t and  a\t fridge.  The  father  again
\nexpressed his  inability to  meet  this\t demand.  Hence\t her
\nfather sent  her back  after pacifying\ther. Similar  is the
\ndeposition of PW-5, the sister of the deceased and PW-7, the
\nbrother-in-law of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     The  afore\t referred  to  evidence,  according  to\t the
\nlearned\t counsel   for\tthe  appellant,\t may  merely  be  an
\nexpression of  the desire  to acquire a fridge, scooter etc.
\nand that by itself cannot be construed as an offence as this
\nwould not  come\t within\t the  definition  of  `dowry’  under
\nSection 2  of the  Dowry Prohibition  Act,  1961  read\twith
\nSection 304-B  and 498\tI.P.C. It  is necessary to refer the
\nafore referred provisions.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 2\tof the\tDowry Prohibition  Act, 1961 defines
\n`dowry’ as under “-\n<\/p>\n
     “Definition of  `dowry’- In this Act, `dowry’ means any
\n     property or  valuable security  given or  agreed to  be
\n     given either directly or indirectly.
\n     [a]  by one  party to  a marriage to the other party to
\n\t  the marriage; or
\n     [b]  by the parents of either party to a marriage or by
\n\t  any other  person, to either party to the marriage
\n\t  or to\t any other  person, at or before or any time
\n\t  after the marriage in connection with the marriage
\n\t  of the said parties, but does not include dowry or
\n\t  mehr in  the case  of persons\t to whom  the Muslim
\n\t  Personal Law (Shariat) applies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 304-B(1) with Explanation of IPC is as also quoted.\n<\/p>\n
     “304-B Dowry  death – (i) where the
\n     death of  a woman\tis caused by any
\n     burns or  bodily injury  or  occurs
\n     otherwise\t than\t under\t  normal
\n     circumstances within seven years of
\n     her marriage  and it  is shown that
\n     soon  before   her\t death\tshe  was
\n     subjected to  cruelty or harassment
\n     by her  husband or\t any relative or
\n     her husband  for, or  in connection
\n     with, any\tdemand for  dowry,  such
\n     death  shall   be\t called\t  “dowry
\n     death”,   and   such   husband   or
\n     relative shall  be deemed\tto  have
\n     caused her death.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Explanation –  For the  purposes of
\n     this  sub-section,\t  “dowry”  shall
\n     have the same meaning as in Section
\n     2 of  the\tDowry  Prohibition  Act,
\n     1961 (18 of 1961).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 498-A is also quoted hereunder :\n<\/p>\n
     “498-A    Husband\tor  relative  of
\n     husband of\t a woman  subjecting her
\n     to cruelty\t –  whoever,  being  the
\n     husband  or  the  relative\t of  the
\n     husband of\t a woman,  subjects such
\n     woman to  cruelty shall be punished
\n     with imprisonment\tfor a term which
\n     may extend to three years and shall
\n     also be liable to fine.\n<\/p>\n
     Explanation –  For the  purposes of
\n     this section, “cruelty” means-\n<\/p>\n
     [a]  any wilful conduct which is of
\n\t  such a  nature as is likely to
\n\t  drive\t the   woman  to  commit
\n\t  suicide  or\tto  cause  grave
\n\t  injury or danger to life, limb
\n\t  or health  (whether mental  or
\n\t  physical) of the woman; or
\n     [b]  harassment of\t the woman where
\n\t  such harassment is with a view
\n\t  to coercing here or any person
\n\t  related to  her  to  meet  any
\n\t  unlawful   demand    for   any
\n\t  property or  valuable security
\n\t  or is on account of failure by
\n\t  her or  any person  related to
\n\t  her to meet such demand.\n<\/p>\n
     The aforesaid  1961  Act  was  enacted  to\t provide  an
\neffective  check  to  dowry  deaths  which  were  continuing
\ndespite the then prevailing laws. The object of the Bill was
\nto prohibit the evil practice of giving and taking of dowry.
\nThis objective\twas not\t achieved hence\t drastic  amendments
\nwere brought  in by  amending various provisions of the said
\nAct and\t the related  provisions under the Indian Penal Code
\nand the\t Evidence Act.\tEarlier, the  definition of  `dowry’
\nwhich was  limited to the time at or before the marriage was
\nextended to  the period\t even after the marriage by means of
\nAct 43\tof 1986\t w.e.f. November 19,1986. Similarly, Section
\n304-B was  introduced by  means of the same amending Act and
\nSection\t 498-A\t was  introduced  by  Criminal\tLaw  (Second
\nAmendment)  Act,  1983\t(Act  46  of  1983).  Various  other
\namendments  were   brought  in\t bringing   more   stringent
\nprovisions in  the aforesaid  1961 Act\tin order to stem the
\nonslaught on the life of a married woman.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  true, as  argued  by  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants, that in  criminal jurisprudence benefit of doubt
\nis extendable  to the  accused. But  that benefit  of  doubt
\nwould arise  in the context of the application of penal law,
\nand in the facts and circumstances of a case. The concept of
\nbenefit of  doubt has  an important  role to play but within
\nthe confines  of the  stringency of laws. Since the cause of
\ndeath to  a  married  woman  was  to  occur  not  in  normal
\ncircumstances but as a `dowry death’, for which the evidence
\nwas not\t to easily  available, as  it is  mostly confined to
\nwithin four  walls of a house, namely husband’s house, where
\nall likely  accused reside.  Hence the\taforesaid amendments
\nbrought in  the concept\t of  deemed  `dowry  death’  by\t the
\nhusband or  the relatives,  as the case may be. This deeming
\nclause has  a role  to play  and cannot be taken lightly and
\nignored to  shield an accused, otherwise the very purpose of
\nthe amendment  will be\tlost. Of course, the prosecution has
\nto prove  the  ultimate\t essential  ingredients\t beyond\t all
\nreasonable doubt  after raising\t the initial  presumption of
\n`deemed dowry death’.\n<\/p>\n
     Explanation to section 304-B refers to dowry “as having
\nthe same  meaning as  in Section  2 of\tthe 1961  Act”,\t the
\nquestion is  – what is the periphery of the dowry as defined
\ntherein? The  argument is,  there has  to be an agreement at
\nthe time  of the marriage in view of the words `agreed to be
\ngiven’ occurring  therein, and\tin the\tabsence of  any such
\nevidence it  would not\tconstitute to  be  a  dowry.  It  is
\nnoticeable, as\tthis definition\t by amendment  includes\t not
\nonly the period before and at the marriage but also a period
\nsubsequent to the marriage.\n<\/p>\n
     When words\t in statute  are referable  to more than one
\nmeaning, the  established rule\tof construction\t is found in
\nHeydon’s case (1584) 76 E.R. 639 also approved by this Court
\nin Bengal  Immunity Co.\t Ltd. V.  State of Bihar & Ors., AIR<\/a>
\n1955 SC\t 661 (674).  The rule  is to  consider four  aspects
\nwhile construing an Act :\n<\/p>\n
     [a]  when was  the law prior to the law which is sought
\n\t  to be interpreted;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [b]  when was  the mischief or defect for which new law
\n\t  is made;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [c]  what is the remedy the law now provides; and
\n     [d]  what is the reason of the remedy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  Court\t  must\tadopt\tthat   construction   which,
\n“suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy.”\n<\/p>\n
     Applying this  principle, it  is clear that the earlier
\nlaw was not sufficient to check dowry deaths hence aforesaid
\nstringent  provisions  were  brought  in,  so  that  persons
\ncommitting such\t inhuman crimes\t on married women should not
\nescape, as  evidence of\t a  direct  nature  is\tnot  readily
\navailable except  of the  circumstantial kind.\tHence it  is
\nthat interpretation which suppresses the mischief, subserves
\nthe objective  and  advances  the  remedy,  which  would  be
\nacceptable. Objective  is that\tmen committing\tsuch  crimes
\nshould not  escape punishment.\tHence  stringent  provisions
\nwere brought  in by  shifting the burden onto the accused by
\nbringing in  the deemed clause. As aforesaid, the definition
\nof `dowry’ was amended with effect from 19th November, 1986,
\nto include a period even after the marriage.\n<\/p>\n
     The offence alleged against appellants is under Section
\n304-B IPC  which makes\t`demand of dowry’ itself punishable.
\nDemand\tneither\t  conceives  nor   would  conceive   of\t any
\nagreement. If  for convicting  any offender,  agreement\t for
\ndowry is to be proved, hardly any offenders would come under
\nthe clutches of law. When Section 304-B refers to `Demand of
\ndowry’, it  refers to  the demand  of property\tor  valuable
\nsecurity as  referred to  in the definition of `dowry’ under
\n1961 Act.  It was  argued on  behalf of the  appellants that
\nmere demand  of scooter\t or fridge would not be a demand for
\ndowry. We find from the evidence on record that within a few
\ndays  after   the  marriage,   the  deceased  was  tortured,
\nmaltreated and\tharassed  for  not  bringing  the  aforesaid
\narticles in marriage. Hence the demand is in connection with
\nmarriage. The  argument that  here is no demand of dowry, in
\nthe present case, has no force. In cases of dowry deaths and
\nsuicides, circumstantial  evidence plays  an important\trole
\nand inferences\tcan be\tdrawn on the basis of such evidence.
\nThat could  be either  direct of indirect. It is significant
\nthat Section 4 of the 1961 Act, was also amended by means of
\nAct 63 of 1984, under which it is an offence to demand dowry
\ndirectly or   indirectly from the parents or other relatives
\nor guardian  of a bride. The word `agreement’ referred to in
\nSection 2  has to be inferred on the facts and circumstances
\nof each\t case. The  Interpretation that the appellant seeks,
\nthat conviction can only be if there is agreement for dowry,
\nis misconceived.  This would  be contrary to the mandate and
\nobject of  the Act.  “Dowry” definition is to be interpreted
\nwith the  other provisions  of the  Act including Section 3,
\nwhich refers   to  giving or  taking dowry  and Section\t 4 –
\nPenalty for  demanding dowry,  under the  1961 Act   and the
\nIndian Penal  Code. This  makes it clear that even demand of
\ndowry on  other ingredients  being satisfied  is punishable.
\nThis leads  to the inference, when persistent demands for TV
\nand scooter  are made  from the bride after marriage or from
\nher parents,  it would\tconstitute to  be in connection with
\nthe marriage  and it  would be\ta case\tof demand  of  dowry
\nwithin the  meaning of\tSection 304-B  IPC. It is not always
\nnecessary that there be any agreement for dowry.\n<\/p>\n
     Reverting to  the present\tcase, the  evidences of\t the
\naforesaid  PWs\tare  very  clear.  After  few  days  of\t the
\nmarriage, there was demand of scooter and fridge, which when
\nnot being  met lead  to repetitive  taunts and maltreatment.
\nSuch demands cannot be said to be not in connection with the
\nmarriage. Hence\t the evidence  qualifies to  be\t demand\t for
\ndowry  in   connection\twith   the  marriage   and  in\t the
\ncircumstances of  the case  constitutes to be a case falling
\nwithin the definition of `dowry’ under Section 2 of 1961 Act
\nand Section 304-B IPC.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  question is, whether there was any cruelty or
\nharassment by  the deceased’s  husband or  any relative\t and
\nthat too  it was  soon before her death. The argument put in
\nis that\t neither  there\t is  any  physical  injury  nor\t any
\nevidence of cruelty from any neighbours or other independent
\npersons; hence\tthere is  no cruelty  or harassment.  In our
\nconsidered opinion,  cruelty  nor  harassment  need  not  be
\nphysical. Even\tmental torture\tin a  given case  would be a
\ncase of cruelty and harassment within the meaning of Section
\n304-B and 498-A IPC. Explanation (a) to Section 498-A itself
\nrefers to  both mental\tand physical  cruelty.\tIn  view  of
\nExplanation (a) the argument is, before it constitutes to be
\na cruelty  there has  to be  wilful  conduct.  Again  wilful
\nconduct means,\tconduct wilfully  done may  be\tinferred  by
\ndirect or  indirect evidence  which could be construed to be
\nsuch. We  find, in  the present\t case,\ton  account  of\t not
\nsatisfying the demand of the aforesaid goods, right from the
\nnext  day,   she  was  repeatedly  taunted,  maltreated\t and
\nmentally tortured by calling her ugly  etc. A girl dreams of
\ngreat days ahead with hope and aspiration when entering into
\na   marriage, and  if from  the very  next day\tthe  husband
\nstarts taunting for not bringing dowry and calling her ugly,
\nthere  cannot  be  greater  mental  torture,  harassment  or
\ncruelty for  any bride. There was a quarrel a day before her
\ndeath. This  by itself,\t in our\t considered  opinion,  would
\nconstitute to  be a  wilful act\t to be a cruelty both within
\nthe meaning of Section 498-A and Section 304-B IPC.\n<\/p>\n
     The argument,  that There is no evidence of any cruelty
\nor harassment  soon before   her death, is also not correct.
\nWe find\t both from the evidence of her sister, Trachala Devi
\nPW-5 and  her  brother-in-law,\tRam  Gopal  PW-7,  that\t the
\ndeceased on 14th May, 1987 came to Shahdara (Delhi) to mourn
\nthe death  of her  maternal uncle and by evening on the same
\nday instead  of returning to her husband’s place came to her
\nsister’s house.\t She  remained\tthere  for  few\t days.\tBoth
\ndeposed that  she told them that her husband was maltreating
\nher in\tview of\t dowry demand,\tand that not being satisfied
\nwas harassing\ther. When on 17th May, 1987 the husband came
\nto take\t  her  back, she  was reluctant\t but  Trishala\tDevi
\nbrought her  down and  sent her with her husband. Though she
\nwent with  the husband\tbut with the last painful words that
\n“it would  be difficult\t now to see her face in the future”.
\nOn the very next day, on 19th May, one day after she arrived
\nat her\thusband’s place, the unfortunate death of Urmil took
\nplace. She  died admittedly  on account of total burn of her
\nbody. Admittedly the incident of quarrel as deposed was only
\na day  before her  death. There\t is direct  evidence that on
\n17th May  itself, there\t was quarrel  at the  house  of\t her
\nsister with  the  deceased  and\t her  husband.\tThe  quarrel
\nbetween the  deceased  and  her\t husband  was  tried  to  be
\nexplained as  some other quarrel which should not constitute
\nto be  a quarrel  in connection\t with the  marriage. We find
\nthat Section  8-A of  the aforesaid 1961 Act which came into
\nforce w.e.f.  2nd October,  1985 for  taking or abetting any
\ndowry, the  burden to  explain\tis  placed  on\tsuch  person
\nagainst whom  the allegation  of committing  an\t offence  is
\nmade. Similarly,  under Explanation  to Section 113-B of the
\nIndian Evidence\t Act, which  was  also\tbrought\t in  by\t the
\naforesaid Act No. 43 of 1986, there is presumption that such
\ndeath is  on account  of dowry death. Thus the burden, if at
\nall, was on the accused to prove otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
     The  aforesaid   evidence\twould,\t on  the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances  of   the\t case,\t bring\tto   an\t inescapable
\nconclusion that the aforesaid quarrel referred to by PWs 5 &
\n7 a  day before\t actual death  of the deceased, cumulatively
\nwith other  evidence constitute to be cruelty and harassment
\nin connection with marriage and that too at her own sister’s
\nplace  which  has  direct  co-relation\twith  the  preceding
\nevidence of  repeated demand  of dowry, to be a case covered
\nboth under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. However, it was open
\nto the\taccused to  prove otherwise  or dispel\tby means  of
\nevidence to  destroy that deeming clause. But we find he has
\nnot been able to do so. Such burden is placed on the accused
\nwith a\tpurpose. Evidence  also concludes  harassment to the
\ndeceased within\t the meaning  of Section  498-A\t Explanation\n<\/p>\n
(b), as\t she was  repeatedly coerced  for  not\tmeeting\t the
\ndemands leading\t to  her  mental  torture  and\tagony  which
\nultimately led her to commit suicide.\n<\/p>\n
     In the present case, we find that both the courts below
\nfound that  inspite of\tthorough cross-examination, there is
\nno deviation on this issue. In fact, it has been pointed out
\nby the\tlearned counsel\t for  the  respondent  that  on\t the
\nquestion  of   cruelty\tand  torture,  there  is  no  cross-
\nexamination though there is some on other points. The courts
\nbelow have  rightly believed  the testimonies of the PWs and
\nwe do not find that there is anything for us to deviate from
\nthe same.  On the other hand, the evidence of the defence is
\nof perfunctory nature, not enough to dispel the burden cast.\n<\/p>\n
     A faint submission was also made that it would not be a
\ncase of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. Reference
\nto Section  107 IPC was also made where abetment should fall
\nunder any  of the  three heads.\t Reliance is  placed on\t the
\nfirst head. We find that the first head provides “instigates
\nany person  to do  that thing”.\t There is  no doubt  in\t the
\npresent case  there is\trepeated demand\t from the  husband’s
\nside from  the girl and her parents for the various articles
\nas aforesaid and on failure, the girl was tortured, harassed
\nby words  and deeds,  amounting to  cruelty. As we have held
\nabove and  one day  before  the\t fateful  day,\tthe  husband
\nsaturated the  mental agony  and cruelty by quarrelling with
\nthe wife  (deceased) even  at her sister’s place, leaving no
\noption which led the deceased to commit suicide. This mental
\nstate is  further clear\t by the\t following words  which\t she
\nspoke to  her sister,  “it would be difficult now to see her
\nface  in   the\tfuture”.  In  our  opinion  all\t this  would
\nconstitute to  be an  act which would be an abetment for the
\ncommission of  the suicide  by the girl. The husband, in the
\npresent case, has not led any cogent evidence or brought any
\ncircumstance to\t dislodge the aforesaid inference. Of course
\nbenefit of  doubt to the accused would be available provided
\nthere is  supportive evidence  on  the\trecord.\t Hence,\t for
\ncreating doubt\tor granting  benefit of\t doubt, the evidence
\nwas to\tbe such which may lead to such doubt. We do not find
\nthat present is a case where any benefit of doubt results at
\nleast against  the husband.  There is  direct  evidence,  as
\nstated by the aforesaid witnesses PWs 5 & 7 that soon before
\nher death  she was  subjected to  cruelty  by  the  husband.
\nHowever, we  find in so far appellant Nos. 2 & 3, father-in-
\nlaw and the mother-in-law, are concerned, the evidence is of
\na general  nature. No  convincing evidence has been led that
\nthe deceased  was subjected  to cruelty by appellant Nos.2 &\n<\/p>\n
3. Before  holding that\t appellant Nos.\t 2 & 3 had committed
\nthe offence,  it had  to be  found that they are responsible
\nfor subjecting her to cruelty or harassment, soon before her
\ndeath. We find in this case evidence is only confined to the
\nhusband and  not against  appellant Nos. 2 & 3. Hence on the
\nevidence on  record, so\t far as\t appellant Nos.\t 2 &  3\t are
\nconcerned, we extend to them the benefit of doubt and acquit
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
     Hence, for\t the aforesaid\treasons, we partly allow the
\nappeal. Convictions  and sentences  of\tappellant  No.1\t are
\nmaintained  but\t  the  convictions   and  sentences  of\t the
\nappellant Nos.\t2 &  3 are set aside. Accordingly, appellant
\nNo.1, namely  Pawan Kumar  is sentenced to 7 years’ rigorous
\nimprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500\/-, in default of payment
\nof fine for further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under
\nSec tion  304-B IPC,  4 years’\trigorous imprisonment and to
\npay a  fine of\tRs 200\/-, in default payment of fine further
\nrigorous imprisonment  for 3  months, under Section 306 IPC,
\nand sentence  for 2  years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay
\nfine for Rs.200\/-, and in default of payment of fine further
\nrigorous imprisonment  for three months, under Section 498-A
\nIPC. All  the sentences\t would run  concurrently. The  other
\nappellants,  namely   appellants  Nos.\t2  &  3\t are  hereby
\nacquitted. They\t are on\t bail. They  need not  surrender  to
\ntheir bail bonds. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal is allowed in part.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998 Author: A.P.Misra Bench: Cji, A.P. Misra PETITIONER: PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/02\/1998 BENCH: CJI, A.P. MISRA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998 Present : Hon’ble the Chief Justice […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38362","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-01T06:06:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-01T06:06:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998\"},\"wordCount\":4570,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998\",\"name\":\"Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-01T06:06:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-01T06:06:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998","datePublished":"1998-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-01T06:06:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998"},"wordCount":4570,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998","name":"Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-01T06:06:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pawan-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-9-february-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38362","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38362"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38362\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}