Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N.Ray : K.Jayachandra Reddy
Lakhjit Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 629 of 1984
Date of Decision : 3/31/93
Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 - Rigorous imprisonment – Offence of murder – Injury - Regarding motive viz. cruelty part of were examined - Other main witnesses are doctors - Accused pleaded not guilty - Trial court taking the circumstances into consideration and relying on post-mortem evidence as well as chemical examiners report held that it was a case of poisoning and circumstances were enough to convict all three accused and accordingly convicted them - All of them preferred an appeal to High court and High Court while acquitting father-in-law of deceased confirmed convictions of two appellants husband and mother-in-law of deceased - Hence this appeal is by the two convicted-accused – Held, Learned counsel, however, submits that since the charge was for offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code accused were not put to notice to meet a charge also made against them under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and therefore they are prejudiced by not framing a charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and therefore, presumption under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn and consequently a conviction under Section 306 cannot be awarded – Court are unable to agree. The facts and circumstances of case have been put forward against accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and when there was a demand for dowry it cannot be said that accused are prejudiced because cross-examination of the witnesses, as well as the answers given under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code would show that they had enough of notice of allegations which attract Section 306 Indian Penal Code also - That apart what all Section I 13-A of Evidence Act says is that court having regard to other circumstances of the case can presume. Therefore circumstances in this case would show that the accused have been demanding dowry even within a short period after the marriage and deceased also had to live in her parents’ house and it is husband who went and brought her back - Deceased followed him and unfortunately incident has taken place. Since there is no direct evidence regarding administration of poison to deceased as such, only course left is to hold that the prosecution has proved only suicide - In these circumstances Section 306 is attracted - For these reasons conviction of the appellants under Section 302 and sentence of imprisonment for life are set aside. Instead, they are convicted under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and sentence of fine of Rupees with default clause are confirmed. Subject to this modification appeal is disposed of - mother of the deceased Public Witness 3 however in her deposition has stated that the deceased complained to her that mother-in-law was demanding dowry and harassing her for same and that other two were silent about it – Therefore inference is that connivance of other two also was there when deceased was being treated accordingly – Therefore cruelty part of it meted out to deceased is proved - Appeal is disposed of
(1) HEARD learned counsel lor the parties.
(2) THIS appeal pursuant to the special leave granted, is directed against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High court. There are two appellants, viz., Lakhjit Singh (original accused 1 and Sukhpal Kaur (original accused 2. These two appellants, along with one Vir Singh (original accused 3 were tried for offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and convicted by the. trial court and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. All of them preferred an appeal, but the High court acquitted Vir Singh (A-3 and confirmed the convictions of the two appellants.
(3) APPELLANT 1 is the son of appellant 2 and Vir Singh (A-3. They are the residents of Village Abul Khurana in Faridkot district. The deceased Kailo was the wife of Lakhjit Singh (A-l). On 16/02/1981, the marriage between Lakhjit Singh and the deceased took place. According to the prosecution, the three accused were demanding dowry and they used to ill-treat the deceased. About 18/19 days prior to the occurrence, the deceased went to her parents house. On 19/07/1981, the husband went to his in-laws house to bring his wife back to his own house and on 22/07/1981, he returned to his village along with the deceased. On 25/07/1981, the deceased complained of pain and Lakhjit Singh, the husband called a doctor (DW 3 for treatment who gave her an injection. Thereafter they took the deceased to Malout Mandi to Dr Goyal (PW 1 for her treatment. He examined her and told that the deceased suffered a heart attack and had expired. They brought back the dead body to their house. Then the husband himself made a complaint to the Sub-Inspector who happened to be present there in the village. An inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post mortem. Doctor (Public Witness 2 who conducted the post-mortem sent the viscera to the chemical examiner. The report revealed that organo-phosphorus compound was found in the stomach, small intestines, large intestines, liver, spleen, kidney and brain of the deceased. On receipt of the report, a formal FIR was recorded and a case registered under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. When the case came up for trial, a charge was framed under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and they proceeded with the trial. Regarding the motive, viz., the cruelty part of it, PWs 4 and 5 were examined. The other main witnesses are the doctors. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court taking the circumstances into consideration and relying on the post-mortem evidence as well as the chemical examiners report, held that it was a case of poisoning and the circumstances were enough to convict all the three accused and accordingly convicted them. All of them preferred an appeal to the High court and the High Court while acquitting A-3 the father-in-law of the deceased, confirmed the convictions of the two appellants the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased. Hence, this appeal is by the two convicted-accused.
(4) THE learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the courts mainly on suspicion and conjecture have reached the conclusion that the two appellants were responsible for administering poison to the deceased and that it could be a " case of accidental death or at the most, suicide, and, at any rate, there is no evidence whatsoever that the two accused were harassing her and, therefore, question of cruelty against her does not arise in this case and, as a result of which, none of them can be found guilty.
(5) THEORY of accident is based on the ground that the deceased was also working in the field in which insecticide was sprayed and she could have inhaled and that could have caused her death. We see no force in this submission because the chemical examination report shows that poisoning was present in almost all the organs. Therefore, it is clearly a cas
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
