SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 15

2011 (1) Supreme 129
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
Narwinder Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Punjab — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 590 of 2005
Decided on : 5-1-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
Mere omission or defect in framing charge would not disable the Court from convicting the accused for the offence which has been found to be proved on the basis of the evidence on record.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 and 304-B – As the suicide death of the deceased was not on account of dowry demands but harassment by the appellant, High Court rightly converted the conviction from one under section 304B to one under section 306. (Para 10)

        (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 221(1) and (2) – Mere omission or defect in framing charge would not disable the Court from convicting the accused for the offence which has been found to be proved on the basis of the evidence on record. (Para 12)

       Facts of the case:

        1. Sukhjit Kaur was married to Narwinder Singh on 30th September, 1984. A male child had first been born to the couple and at the time of the incident, the wife was pregnant a second time.

        2. The appellant and his parents Daljit Singh and Joginder Kaur were asking Sukhjit Kaur to bring valuable articles such as a scooter from her parents. Rs.5,000/- was paid by appellant’s mother-in-law Gursharan Kaur in 1987.

        3. On 25th May, 1987, Bhai Davinder Singh, father of Sukhjit Kaur was murdered by extremists. After the death of Bhai Davinder Singh, the accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/-.

        4. On 30th May, 1988, Sukhjit Kaur was founds dead.

        5. The trial court convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC.

        6. The High Court acquitted the parents of the appellant. However, the conviction of the appellant was converted from one under Section 304-B IPC to Section 306 IPC.

       Finding of the Court:

        There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. —

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6th October, 2004 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 406-SB of 1992 wherein the appellant has been convicted under Section 306 Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. We may briefly notice the facts. Sukhjit Kaur, alias Rani was married to Narwinder Singh of Village Mehdipur on 30th September, 1984. A male child had first been born to the couple and at the time of the incident, the wife was pregnant a second time. According to the in-laws of the appellant, they had given sufficient dowry at the marriage of their daughter to the appellant. It appears that the appellant and his parents Daljit Singh and Joginder Kaur remained dissatisfied. About two months after the marriage, Sukhjit Kaur informed her mother Gursharan Kaur that her in-laws were asking her to bring valuable articles such as a scooter from her parents. It is also the case of the prosecution that an additional demand of Rs.5,000/- was made by Narwinder Singh, in the year 1986, which amount too was paid by his mother-in-law Gursharan Kaur. Unfortunately, on 25th May, 1987, Bhai Davinder Singh, father of Sukhjit Kaur was murdered by extremists. After the death of Bhai Davinder Singh, there was sea-change in the attitude of the appellant and her parents, and they started maltreating her. About six months prior to the fatal incident, there had been a quarrel between the husband and wife, which was settled with the intervention of several relatives including Kulbir Singh and Onkar Singh, PW-5. About ten days prior to the incident, Sukhjit Kaur went to Onkar Singh’s house in Village Nabipur and informed him that the accused were demanding Rs.50,000/-. They were saying that her late father had left enough money for the family and that she should get her share. Onkar Singh told her that he would inform Gursharan Kaur, who was then living in England about the demand and seek instructions from her. Unfortunately, on 30th May, 1988, Onkar Singh came to know about the death of his niece Sukhjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). He alongwith Gurjit Kaur, sister of the deceased, Hanwant Singh, Darshan Singh and Mohan Singh went to village Mehdipur and saw the dead body of Sukhjit Kaur alias Rani lying in the house. Blood was oozing from her nose. Onkar Singh, thereafter, lodged a FIR naming the accused as having been responsible for her death. Initially, a case under Section 306 IPC was registered against the accused but, a charge under Section 304-B of the IPC was ultimately framed by the Court.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution relied inter- alia on the evidence of Kulbir Singh (PW-2) and Onkar Singh (PW-5), both uncles of the deceased, Gursharan Kaur (PW-6) the mother and Gurjit Kaur (PW-7). The sister of Sukhjit Kaur stated that the demands made by the accused had been satisfied off and on and that the behaviour of the accused had compelled Sukhjit Kaur to commit suicide. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of Dr. H.S. Bajwa (PW-3), who on the basis of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory opined that she had died of Organo Phosphorus poisoning. A large number of documents including some letters allegedly written by the deceased to her family members and by them to her were also produced in evidence.

4. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded that as a matter of fact Sukhjit Kaur had fallen ill as she was pregnant and depressed after the murder of her father (to whom she had been deeply attached) and that she had been taken to Oberoi Hospital by her father-in-law on seeing her condition deterior






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top