IMPORTANT POINT
If a significant omission is made in the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the same may amount to a contradiction and that whether it so amounts is a question of fact in each case.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 306 and 498A-Death by burn injuries- Prosecution of appellant and his father for harassing deceased in connection with unfulfilled dowry demands -Trial Court convicted accused persons-On appeals High Court affirmed conviction of appellant while reducing conviction of his father to period already undergone-Appeal- Bare perusal of statements of PW-2 the father of victim and PW-10 , her brother showed that entire story with regard to the factum of the cruelty, manner in which the deceased was dealt with, and the behaviour of the accused towards her had been built up during the evidence recorded in Court- One significant fact had been omitted in the statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. -This was with regard to the oral dying declarations made to them by deceased and when confronted could give no explanation for the omission- In addition, it was clear that the dying declaration recorded Ex.PCC had been maneuvered at the instance of PW. -Trial court as well as the High Court not placed much reliance on statements of these two witnesses-If a significant omission is made in the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the same may amount to a contradiction and that whether it so amounts is a question of fact in each case- Ocular evidence with regard to the events preceding the actual incident rested exclusively on the statements of PWs.2 and 10-The glaring omissions made by them were writ large in the cross-examination- Hence held that present case was one of no evidence and the possibility that deceased had been burnt in an accident could not be ruled out-Conviction of appellant could not be sustained-Appeal allowed (Paras 4,5)
       Facts of the Case :
        Deceased herein in the instant case died of burn injuries. Appellant husband and his father were prosecuted for harassing deceased in connection with unfulfilled dowry demands .Trial Court convicted accused persons. On appeals thereagainst, High Court affirmed conviction of appellant while reducing conviction of his father to period already undergone.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Bare perusal of statements of PW-2 the father of victim and PW-10 , her brother. showed that entire story with regard to the factum of the cruelty, manner in which the deceased was dealt with, and the behaviour of the accused towards her had been built up during the evidence recorded in Court. One significant fact had been omitted in the statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. .This was with regard to the oral dying declarations made to them by deceased and when confronted could give no explanation for the omission. In addition, it was clear that the dying declaration recorded Ex.PCC had been maneuvered at the instance of PW. Trial court as well as the High Court not placed much reliance on statements of these two witnesses.If a significant omission is made in the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the same may amount to a contradiction and that whether it so amounts is a question of fact in each case. Ocular evidence with regard to the events preceding the actual incident rested exclusively on the statements of PWs.2 and 10.The glaring omissions made by them were writ large in the cross-examination. Hence held that present case was one of no evidence and the possibility that deceased had been burnt in an accident could not be ruled out. Conviction of appellant could not be sustained. Appeal was allowed.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Harjit Singh Bedi, J. —

This appeal arises out of the following facts :

1. The deceased Anuradha, and the appellant Subhash, a resident of Mahendargarh in the State of Haryana, were married at Ganga Nagar in the State of Rajasthan on the 1st February 1984. At the time of the marriage, Kishori Lal PW-2 the father of the bride, a retired Sub-Inspector of the Rajasthan Police, spent a large amount of money and also provided appropriate dowry articles to her. It appears, however, that the accused i.e. the husband Subhash, his father Siri Ram, his brothers Sudesh and Sukesh, and Kusum, his sister were dissatisfied with the dowry articles, and Subhash made an independent demand for a scooter. Anuradha upset with her husband and in-laws, returned to her parents home but returned to Mahendargarh after staying at Ganga Nagar for a day. Rajinder Gaur PW-10 her brother, and his wife also visited Mahendargarh after about 5 or 7 days and the accused at this stage raised a demand for a refrigerator, a cooler and a colour TV. About a month thereafter, Kishori Lal PW also visited Anuradha’s home at Mahendargarh and the demand for the aforesaid articles was reiterated. Anuradha also complained to her father that she was being mal-treated on account of the non-satisfaction of the demands. Kishori Lal, accordingly, brought Anuradha back to Ganga Nagar but a month thereafter Subhash came to Ganga Nagar and this time asked Kishori Lal to arrange for a sum of Rs.50,000/- as he needed the money to invest in a business. In November 1984, Kishori Lal and his wife Saraswati Devi PW-9 visited Mahendargarh on which the demand for Rs.50,000/- was repeated. Kishori Lal, however, expressed his inability to meet the demand. Anuradha again complained to her parents that she was being repeatedly harassed by the accused. On the 8th of August 1985 a daughter was born to Subhash and Anuradha on which Siri Ram appellant addressed a letter to Kishori Lal wherein he made a demand for several articles including 21 sarees, some articles of jewellery and other garments to be presented as per custom on the birth of a child. Owing to his illness Kishori Lal could not go to Mahendargarh but Saraswati Devi PW went to that place and presented several articles such as sarees and ornaments worth Rs.10,000/-. The accused, however, were completely dissatisfied with the gifts and expressed their unhappiness in no uncertain terms. As per the prosecution story, a letter Ex.PF dated 26th of August 1985 was addressed by Siri Ram to Kishori Lal in which the former complained that the gifts sent at the time of birth of the child were not in accordance with the status of the family. It appears that at 2.10 a.m. on the night intervening 26th and 27th October 1985 Anuradha was removed to the Civil Hospital, Mahendargarh with severe burn injuries. Prior to this, however, Subhash had approached Udai Singh PW-8, a car driver of Mahendargarh at about 1 a.m. seeking his assistance in shifting Anuradha to Delhi on account of her burn injuries. Udai Singh, accompanied by Subhash, accordingly reached the latter’s house, just as Anuradha was being shifted to the Civil Hospital, Mahendargarh in a cycle rickshaw by the other accused on which Udai Singh asked Subhash as to what had happened. Anuradha was thereupon taken to the Civil Hospital, Mahendargarh in the car of Udai Singh. A bed-head ticket Ex.PA was accordingly prepared by Dr. Janak Raj Singal PW-10, Medical Officer Incharge of the Civil Hospital, who found 70% burns on her face, arms, neck, chest, abdomen and thighs. He also addressed a communication to the police on which ASI Amir Singh PW-16 of Police Station Mahendargarh reached the hospital but the Doctor opined that Anuradha was unfit to make a statement. The ASI then recorded the statement Ex.PGG of Subhash, who too was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries, in which he attributed the injuries to an accident and sustained while she was heating milk for the baby girl o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 1220

2010 (8) Supreme 540SUPREME COURT OF INDIAHarjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.Subhash — AppellantversusState of Haryana — RespondentCriminal Appeal No.184 of 2006Decided on : 16-12-2010

IMPORTANT POINT If a significant omission is made in the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the same may amount to a contradiction and that whether it so amounts is a question of fact in each case.

2010 (8) Supreme 540
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.
Subhash — Appellant
versus
State of Haryana — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.184 of 2006
Decided on : 16-12-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
If a significant omission is made in the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the same may amount to a contradiction and that whether it so amounts is a question of fact in each case.