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

2015 Supreme(SC) 622

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi, Amitava Roy, JJ.
Major Singh and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2012
Decided On: 08-04-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant : Harikesh Singh and Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advs.
For Respondents: Ajay Bansal, AAG and Kuldip Singh, Adv.

Headnote:

Evidence Act - Section 113B - Dowry Prohibition Act 43 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304B - Appeal against conviction - Imprisonment - Demand of dowry - Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal PW1 daughter was married to accused son Appellant No. 1 resident about years back - Case of prosecution is that husband and her in-laws harassed his daughter in connection with demand of dowry - Deceased informed PW1 several times about ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her and demand of scooter raised by accused - He gave his statement to Sub Inspector of Police-PW6 - On basis of statement of PW1 F.I.R. was registered Under Section 304B and 498A Indian Penal Code against accused persons - After investigation accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences punishable Under Section 304B and 498A Indian Penal Code to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial - Held, Applying these principles to instant case court find that there is no evidence as to demand of dowry or cruelty and that deceased was subjected to dowry harassment soon before her death - Except demand of scooter there is nothing on record to substantiate allegation of dowry demand - Assuming that there was demand of dowry in court view it can only be attributed to husband who in all probability could have demanded same for his use - In absence of any evidence that deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death by Appellants conviction of Appellants Under Section 304B Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained - Trial court and High Court have not analyzed evidence in light of essential ingredients of Section304B Indian Penal Code and the conviction of Appellants Under Section 304B Indian Penal Code is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

R. Banumathi, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.8.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. S-1029-SB of 1998 whereby the High Court confirmed the conviction of the Appellants Under Section 304BIndian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed on each of them.

2. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under: PW1-Sukhdev Singh's daughter Karamjit Kaur was married to accused Jagsir Singh son of Major Singh Jatt Appellant No. 1, resident of Badiala about 21/2 years back. Case of the prosecution is that Karamjit Kaur's husband and her in-laws harassed his daughter in connection with demand of dowry. Deceased Karamjit Kaur informed PW1-Sukhdev Singh several times about the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her and the demand of scooter raised by the accused. PW1-Sukhdev Singh reported that on 10.8.1996 at about 10.00 a.m., he went to village Badiala to enquire about the well-being of his daughter and when he reached there he witnessed that Jagsir Singh, his father-Major Singh, his mother-Mohinder Kaur and his sister-Golo @ Jaspal Kaur all were dragging his daughter Karamjit Kaur towards the 'subat' while she was struggling to breathe. On seeing PW1-Sukhdev Singh and his son PW3-Manga Singh, the accused persons ran away and Karamjit Kaur breathed her last. PW1 informed Panchayat that accused persons gave poison to his daughter in greed of getting more dowry. Complainant left PW3-Manga Singh to guard the dead body of his daughter and went back to his village Balianwali and gave information about the unnatural death of his daughter to his family and Panchayat. He gave his statement to Kirpal Singh Sub Inspector of Police-PW6. On the basis of statement of PW1-Sukhdev Singh, F.I.R. No. 81 dated 14.8.1996 was registered Under Section 304B and 498A Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. PW6 had taken up the investigation and conducted inquest and recorded statement of witnesses. He sent the body of deceased-Karamjit Kaur for autopsy. After investigation, the accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences punishable Under Section 304B and 498A Indian Penal Code to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. To bring home the guilt of the accused in the trial court, prosecution has examined nine witnesses and three defence witnesses. The accused were questioned Under Section313 Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances and the evidence and the accused denied all of them. In his statement, Appellant-Major Singh stated that none of them knew how to drive a scooter and therefore question of demand of the scooter did not arise. He further stated that PW1-Sukhdev Singh owned only 2 acres of land and having a large family of eight members, he was not in a position to give anything and therefore there was no question of demand of dowry.

4. The trial court vide judgment dated 27.11.1998 convicted and sentenced the accused Jagsir Singh (husband), Major Singh (father-in-law), Mohinder Kaur (mother-in-law) Under Section 304B Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each with default clause. The trial court, however, gave benefit of doubt to accused Golo @ Jaspal Kaur (sister of Jagsir Singh) and acquitted her and also acquitted all the accused Under Section 498A Indian Penal Code.

5. Aggrieved by their conviction, Appellants approached the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, Jagsir Singh (husband of the deceased) died and appeal against Jagsir Singh abated and appeal survived qua the Appellants viz., father-in-law and mother-in-law. High Court vide impugned judgment dated 20.8.2010 confirmed the conviction of the Appellants Under Section 304B Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment imposed on each of them. Aggrieved by the same, Appellants who are father-in-






















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