2014 Supreme(SC) 895

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Vijay Pal Singh and others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO (S). 37 OF 2011
Decided on: 16-12-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
If death under section 304B IPC is homicidal, courts are required to find out the person causing the murder.
If in a case u/s 304B IPC there is evidence of offence u/s 302 IPC, this has to be investigated. Instead of putting section 302 IPC as an alternate charge along with section 304B IPC, it should be other way round.
Demand of dowry u/s 498A or 304B IPC need not to be the deceased woman.
There is difference between identification and recognition.
Principles of interference with order of acquittal u/s 378 CrPC discussed.
In a case u/s 304B IPC Court cannot proceed u/s 302 IPC if evidence is lacking.
Presumption of involvement o husband and relatives u/s 304B IPC with the aid of section 113B of Evidence Act is rebuttable. Direct evidence is not required for such rebuttal.
Acquittal u/s 302 IPC cannot lead to automatic acquittal u/s 304B IPC unless presumption u/s 113B of Evidence Act is rebutted.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 and 304B – Death of married woman in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage – Section 304B attracted – However death being homicidal, courts were required to find out the person causing the murder – Section 304B is not a substitute for section 302. (Para 16)

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 and 304B – Death of married woman in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage – Section 304B is invoked and section 302 is put as an alternate charge even if there is evidence of homicidal death – In such case it should be other way round – Where evidence shows that the offence falls under Section 302, trial court should frame the charge under Section 302 of IPC even if the police has not expressed any opinion in that regard in the report under Section 173(2), Cr.PC – Section 304B can be put as an alternate charge if the trial court so feels – Courts cannot close their eyes on evidence leading to culpable homicide. (Para 19, 21)

       (2005) 9 SCC 113; (2013) 7 SCC 256 – Relied upon

       © Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B and 498A – Death occurring within four months of marriage – Consistent demand for dowry – Demand of dowry need not be to the deceased – Cruelty or harassment – Section 498A – Need not be physical –In-laws’ making demand for dowry as a pre-condition for taking deceased back – Even a Panchayat held to sort out the issue – Sufficient indicators of cruelty or harassment – All ingredients of section 304B satisfied (Para 29, 30, 31)

       (1991) 3 SCC 1; (1991) 1 SCC 371; (2014) 13 SCALE 96 – Relied upon

       (d) Words and Phrases – Identification and recognition – Because the face was not completely burnt, PW 2 and 3 could identify that it was a woman – They not being from the village of the deceased could not recognise who it was – Other persons known to her recognised her. (Para 32)

       (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – Order of acquittal – Can be interfered if based on no evidence, or view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable, or is not a plausible view, or there is non-consideration of any evidence or there is palpable misreading of evidence – Instantly, trial court palpably misreading the evidence – Interference by High Court – No infirmity. (Para 33)

       (2014) 5 SCC 154; (2008) 1 SCC 258; (2006) 1 SCC 401; (2002) 10 SCC 461; (2006) 10 SCC 313; (1996) 9 SCC 225; (2010) 12 SCC 59; (2003) 11 SCC 271; (2007) 4 SCC 415 – Relied upon

       (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – High Court recording finding of culpable homicide – Not awarding any sentence thereunder – Incident quite old happening in 1991 – Prosecution not placing all links in chain of circumstances – Lack of evidence – Not safe to proceed under section 302. (Para 34)

       (g) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 and 304B – Appellant acquitted under section 302 – Effect of conviction u/s 304B – Acquittal u/s 302 cannot lead to automatic acquittal u/s 304B unless presumption u/s 113B of Evidence Act is rebutted. (Para 36)

       (2002) 10 SCC 277 – Relied upon

       (h) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B r/w section 113B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – All ingredients of section 304B satisfied – Husband and relatives can be presumed to have caused death of deceased – Presumption is rebuttable – Direct evidence not required for rebuttal – Involvement of younger brother and brother-in-law – Younger brother studying at some other place – Brother in law living in another village – Independent witnesses not recognizing these accused persons – Not safe to convict them. (Para 34, 35, 37)

       AIR 1961 SC 1316; (2001) 1 SCC 691 – Relied upon

       (i) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 235 – Appellants sentenced u/s 304B, 498A and 201 IPC – All sentences to run concurrently – Not following procedure u./s 235 not prejudicing appellants – Not a fit case for remand to High Court or comply with section 235 by Supreme Court. (Para 38)

       Facts of the case:

       Marriage between the second appellant-Narendra Singh-son of the first appellant-Vijay Pal Singh and the deceased Saroj daughter of Ramesh Singh took place on 10.02.1991. PW-1 was informed on 25.05.1991, by the first appellant-Vijay Pal Singh through his son Rakesh Singh that Saroj was found missing from the intervening night of 23/24th May, 1991.

       Her dead body was found later on in burnt condition.

       Appellants were charged with and tried for offences under sections 302/34, 304B/34, 498A and 201 IPC.

       The trial court acquitted all the accused-appellants.

       High Court however reversed the trial court verdict and convicted them all under sections 304B/34, 498A and 201 IPC.

       

       Finding of the Court:

       Third and fourth accused ought not be convicted.

       Result: Appeal partly allowed, conviction and sentence against the third and fourth accused/appellants, Rakesh Singh and Gyan Chandra, respectively, set aside.