Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 1348
2007(8) Supreme 49
Supreme Court of india
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
C.K. Thakker & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Kishan Singh & Anr. — Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab — Respondent
Appeal (Crl.) 1612 of 2005
Decided on : 12-10-2007
important point
Judicial restraints and discipline are necessary to orderly administration of justice. Courts should not make disparaging remarks.
Headnote:(a)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – Where all ingredients of section 304B, namely unnatural death due to cruelty within seven years of marriage and continuous demand of dowry having been satisfied, courts below were right in convicting and sentencing the accused persons. (Paras 25 and 29)
(b)Judicial Decorum – If any part of the evidence is not consistent with the facts on record, the Court may not accept it, but only for that reason, the Court should not make disparaging remarks – While dealing with a matter, the Presiding Officer of a Court may extend benefit of doubt to the accused in the light of omissions, contradictions or discrepancies in the deposition of prosecution witnesses – He may also offer comment on the conduct of parties or witnesses and may as well make necessary observations keeping in view their demeanour – Judicial restraints and discipline are equally necessary to orderly administration of justice – Instantly, there was no occasion for the trial Court to go to the extent of describing the evidence of PW4-Gopal Singh to be ‘false’ – The Court could have acquitted accused No.1 on that ground, but it was certainly not a case of making scathing remarks against the witness – All those remarks ordered to be deleted from the record. (Para 32, 33 and 39)
(1964) 2 SCR 363: AIR 1964 SC 703; (1986) 4 SCC 566; (1990) 2 SCC 533: JT 1990 (1) SC 545 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1.Reeta Kumari, daughter of Tilak Singh and Sudershana Rani-PW2, got married to Manmohan Singh (original accused No.1). Reeta Kumari, immediately after marriage, disclosed on her first visit to parental home after 3-4 days that the accused were subjecting her to taunts and harassments for not bringing scooter and golden bangle (kara) in dowry.
2.On June 20, 1999, at about 3.30 p.m., one Mangat Ram, informed parents of Reeta Kumari that Reeta Kumari died after consuming some poisonous substance.
3.Accused No. 1 Manmohan Singh was held liable for an offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC by the Sessions Court. Accused No.2-Janak Singh, brother in law of the deceased, accused No.3-Kishan Singh and accused No.4-Bachni Rani, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Reeta Kumari, were held guilty of offence u/ss 304B and 315, IPC.
4.High Court maintained the conviction and sentence against parents-in-law of deceased Reeta Kumari u/ss 304B and 315, IPC and acquitted accused No.1-Manmohan Singh-husband.
5.Conviction and sentence of the parents-in-law of the deceased is under challenge in this appeal.
Findings of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the orders of the Courts below.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT
C.K. THAKKER, J.—
1.The present appeal is filed by the two appellants against an order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on April 30, 2002 in Sessions Case No. 128 of 1999 and confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh on May 4, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No.950-SB of 2002. By the said order, the Courts below convicted the appellants herein for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 315, Indian Penal Code (IPC). For an offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC the appellants were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, whereas for an offence punishable under Section 315, IPC, they were ordered to undergo imprisonment for three years.
2.The facts of the case in nutshell are that Reeta Kumari, daughter of Tilak Singh and Sudershana Rani-PW2, got married to Manmohan Singh (original accused No.1) on February 19, 1999 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. According to the prosecution, sufficient dowry was given by the parents of Reeta Kumari at the time of marriage as per their financial status and capacity. However, Reeta Kumari, immediately after marriage, disclosed on her first visit to parental home after 3-4 days that the accused were subjecting her to taunts and harassments for not bringing scooter and golden bangle (kara) in dowry. The young bride was told in clear terms that if the demands of the accused of scooter and golden bangle would not be met with, she should not come back to matrimonial home. Even thereafter, during her visit to parental home at 2-3 occasions, Reeta Kumari informed her family members that the accused were repeating their demand of scooter and golden bangle. She was, however, pacified by Sudershana Rani and other family members to return to matrimonial home on an assurance that scooter and golden bangle would be given when the complainants husband (Manmohan Singh) would come on leave. It may be stated that the husband of deceased Reeta Kumari was serving in Indian Army. It is further the version of the prosecution that about 14 days prior to the occurrence, PW7-Dharminder Singh, brother of Reeta Kumari went to village Kahnuwan at the matrimonial home of deceased Reeta Kumari to enquire about the welfare of his sister. On return, he informed his mother Sudershana Rani that Reeta Kumari was being subjected to mal-treatment by the accused on account of demand of dowry and that he had brought Reeta Kumari with him to parental home. Complainant Sudershana Rani, thereafter, had a talk with the accused persons and assured that their demand of scooter and golden bangle would be fulfilled after Manmohan Singh would return. Reeta Kumari was, therefore, again sent back to matrimonial home along with PW4-Gopal Singh, cousin of Reeta Kumari. On June 20, 1999, at about 3.30 p.m., one Mangat Ram, who acted as mediator for the marriage between Reeta Kumari and Manmohan Singh, informed parents of Reeta Kumari that Reeta Kumari died after consuming some poisonous substance. On hearing the news, Sudershana Rani-complainant, along with her son Dharminder Singh and nephew Daulat Singh went to the house of the accused at village Kahnuwan where they found dead body of Reeta Kumari lying in a room. Statement of Sudershana Rani was recorded at Ex.PB (FIR 111) on the same day by PW 9 Swinder Singh (Station Inspector) who met them at the bus stand, Kahnuwan.
3.The prosecution case also disclosed that at the time of death, Reeta Kumari was pregnant with a child of about 12 weeks gestation period in her womb. It was alleged by the prosecution that death was caused by the accused and it was a dowry death. Challan was, therefore, presented against the accused for offences punishable under Section 304B, 315 and 498A, IPC. Since an offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC was exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the tria
