- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajbir Alias Raju And Another v. State Of Haryana .
Factual and Procedural Background
Rajbir (Petitioner 1) was convicted by the trial court for murdering his pregnant wife Sunita six months after their marriage. He received a life sentence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with other sentences. His mother (Petitioner 2) was sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reduced Rajbir’s sentence to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed with a 158-day delay, which the Court has now condoned.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Punjab and Haryana High Court was justified in reducing Petitioner 1’s life sentence to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 304-B IPC involving the brutal killing of a pregnant wife.
- Whether the Supreme Court should enhance Petitioner 1’s sentence, restoring the life sentence imposed by the trial court or potentially imposing an even harsher penalty.
- Whether Petitioner 2, an octogenarian mother of the principal accused, is entitled to bail during the pendency of the SLP.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Satya Narayan Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2010) 13 SCC 689 | The Supreme Court’s commitment to taking a serious view of crimes against women and imposing harsh punishment. | Cited to justify a strict approach in the present matter and to consider enhancing the sentence awarded to Petitioner 1. |
| Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 13 SCC 656 | Reiteration of the Court’s stance on severe punishment for crimes against women, including issuing notice for possible enhancement to a death sentence. | Relied on as precedent for issuing notice to Petitioner 1 regarding enhancement of his sentence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court characterized the offence as “barbaric and brutal,” underscored by medical evidence describing extensive contusions, throttling, and the discovery of a four-month-old foetus in the victim’s uterus. The Court expressed inability to comprehend the High Court’s sentence reduction, noting that the injuries indicated repeated blows to the head and throttling leading to death.
By referencing its recent judgments in Satya Narayan Tiwari and Sukhdev Singh, the Court reaffirmed a judicial policy of imposing stringent sentences for crimes against women. Consistent with that policy, it deemed the High Court’s leniency unjustified and signalled its willingness to restore or even increase the sentence. The Court also issued a systemic directive: trial courts nationwide should ordinarily add a charge under Section 302 IPC alongside Section 304-B in dowry-death cases, enabling the imposition of death sentences where warranted.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: (1) Delay of 158 days in filing the SLP is condoned. (2) Notice issued to Petitioner 1 to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced to the life sentence originally imposed by the trial court. (3) Notice issued to the State regarding Petitioner 2, who is granted interim bail to the satisfaction of the trial court. (4) All trial courts in India are directed to ordinarily add a charge under Section 302 IPC in prosecutions under Section 304-B IPC.
Implications: The order signals a tougher sentencing approach for dowry-related murders and sets an administrative directive likely to influence charging practices across India. Although no final enhancement is yet imposed, the notice to Petitioner 1 and the nationwide directive foreshadow stricter future penalties in similar cases.
Order
1. Delay of 158 days in filing the special leave petition is condoned.
2. Petitioner 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 and Haryana High Court has reduced the sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. Petitioner 2, (mother of Rajbir), was awarded two years' rigorous imprisonment.
3. We fail to see why the High Court has reduced the sentence of Petitioner 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 the doctor, PW 2, which are as follows:
“1. A diffused contusion reddish in colour on right side of face extending between left half of both lips and up to right pinna and from the zygomatic area to right angle mandible. On dissection underlying tissue was found ecchymosed.
2. On right side of neck, a diffused contusion 3.5 cm × 2.5 cm situated 2.5 cm posterior inferior to right angle of mandible. On dissection underlying area was ecchymosed.
3. A contusion of size 7.5 cm × 5 cm over left side of neck just below angle of mandible. Underlying area on dissection was ecchymosed.
4. Multiple reddish contusions of various sizes from 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm to 1 cm × 0.5 cm on both lips including an area of 6 cm × 4 cm. On dissection, underlying area was ecchymosed.
5. A laceration of size 1.5 cm × 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 ecchymosed on dissection.
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.
4. We have recently held in Satya Narayan Tiwari v. State of U.P (2010) 13 SCC 689, 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 Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 13 SCC 656 and we issued notice to the petitioner as to why his life sentence be not enhanced to death sentence.
5. Issue notice to Petitioner 1 why his sentence be not enhanced to life sentence as awarded by the trial court.
6. As regards Petitioner 2 (mother of Petitioner 1), it is alleged that she is about 80 years of age. Issue notice to the respondent State regarding Petitioner 2. In the meantime, Petitioner 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, PS Sadar Rohtak.
7. We further direct all the trial courts in India to ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of Section 304-B, so that death sentences can be imposed in such heinous and barbaric crimes against women. Copy of this order be sent to the Registrars General/Registrars of all High Courts, which will circulate it to all trial courts.
Alert