Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
SULTAN SINGH - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1366 OF 2010
Decided on: 26-09-2014
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 45—Expert opinion—Evidentiary value—Statement of an expert witness without being based on any specialized knowledge cannot be accepted—Opinion of expert witness on technical aspects has relevance but opinion has to be based upon specialized knowledge and data on which it is based has to be found acceptable by Court. (Para 13)
(1992) 3 SCC 204—Relied.
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 113B—Dowry death—Presumption—Legislative intent—Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act has been enacted to check menace of the dowry deaths and in appreciating evidence, social background of legislation cannot be ignored. (Para 14)
11 WR Cr. 25; (2003) 8 SCC 80—Relied.
Facts of case—
This is yet another sad case of cruelty and dowry death. Instant appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence of appellant under Sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Under Section 304-B IPC, appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years while under Section 498A, IPC he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, apart from sentence of fine.
Findings of Court—
Having regard to entirety of material, we do not find any ground to interfere with concurrent finding recorded by courts below that it was not a case of accidental death but a death taking place in circumstances other than normal. Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act has been rightly invoked and offence against appellant has been proved. There is no tangible circumstance to rebut presumption.
Result—Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld.
JUDGMENT
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short the “IPC”). Under Section 304-B IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years while under Section 498A, IPC he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, apart from sentence of fine.
2. The appellant was married to the deceased Lavjeet Kaur on 27th February, 1990. On 17th June, 1994, PW 4Gurmeet Singh lodged First Information Report to the effect that Lavjeet Kaur was burnt to death by the appellant and his mother. It was further stated that she was harassed for dowry soon before her death. Apart from other demands of dowry, it was stated that 5-6 days before the death, the appellant visited the parental house of the deceased and made a demand of Rs.30,000/-for purchase of land. Since the said demand was not met, he left the house under protest. On the fateful day, when he (PW-4) visited the house of the appellant he found that the appellant’s mother poured oil from a ‘can’ on the deceased and the appellant ignited the fire. He came to his parents and thereafter he went to the Civil Hospital where he learnt that the accused was referred to the PGI Chandigarh but she died on the way.
3. On the basis of this First Information Report, the investigation was conducted by PW 6-ASI, Madan Pal Singh and after investigation, the appellant and his mother (who has been acquitted by the High Court) were sent up for trial.
4. The prosecution examined PW 4-Gurmeet Singh, brother of the deceased, PW 5-Ujjagar Singh, father of the deceased, apart from evidence of Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer and other evidence.
5. The appellant denied the allegations and took the plea that the deceased caught fire accidentally while working on a stove. He had gone to the school near their house for giving his photo for the Identity Card for voting purpose. When he learnt about the accident, he immediately took Lavjeet Kaur to the hospital.
6. The trial Court held that though the version of PW 4-Gurmeet Singh and PW 5-Ujjagar Singh that they had seen the appellant setting the deceased on fire was not reliable, their reversion of demand of dowry soon before the death could not be rejected. Since her death was within seven years of marriage, demand of dowry was proved and the death was under the circumstances other than normal, presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act could be raised. Thus, the commission of offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC was proved. It was held that story of bursting of stove was not reliable. The relevant discussion in this regard, is as follows :
“From the sworn testimony of PWs Gurmeet Singh and Ujjagar Singh discussed above it has become very clear that deceased Smt. Lavjeet Kaur was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for the demand of dowry right from the beginning of her marriage till death. Even soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons when father of the deceased could not pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-to accused Sultan Singh 5/6 days prior to the death of deceased. Deceased was married with accused Sultan Singh on 27.2.1990 and she died on 17.6.1994 on account of burn injuries at the matrimonial home. The fact that the deceased died on account of burn injuries is well proved from the medical evidence consisting of the statements of Dr. S.K. Gupta who medico-legally examined the deceased immediately on arrival at Civil Hospital Ambala Cantt., and also of Dr. Gajinder Yadav PW-3 who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of deceased. The deceased Smt. Lavjeet Kaur aged about 22 years had suffered 70% burn injuries and died on account of the same. Thus, it has been well established that the death of deceased Smt. Lavjeet Kaur was caused by burns and she died unnatural death. It has als
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
