SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
Sat Parkash – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1163 of 2011
Decided on : 09-12-2015
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 366 – Dying declaration of deceased indicating that she committed suicide because it was not possible to marry the appellant by disregarding wishes of the family – Appellant could not have been convicted u/s 366. (Para 5)
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 366A – There being no mention of any other person than the appellant, conviction u/s 366A cannot be sustained. (Para 6, 7)
(d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – No evidence of rape on the deceased – High Court rightly acquitted the appellant of charges u/s 376. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced u/s 363, 366, 366-A and 376 IPC.
This was upheld by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Judgment
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
The appellant – Sat Parkash, his uncle – Hari Chand and aunt – Sarla, were charged with the following, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat on 18.10.1993:
“Firstly:-That you Sat Parkash on 7.6.1992 in the area of Ganaur kidnapped Kumari Sushila alias Punam, a minor girl aged about 15 years from the lawful guardianship of her father Jagdish PW and thereby you Sat Parkash accused committed an offence punishable under Section 363 IPC within the cognizance of this Court.
Secondly:-1 That on the said date, time and place you Sat Parkash accused kidnapped Kumari Sushila alias Punam, a girl aged about 15 year minor daughter of Jagdish PW with intent that said Sushila may be forced to illicit intercourse with you Sat Parkash and thereby you Sat Parkash accused committed an offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.
Thirdly:-That from 7.6.1992 in the area of Ganaur, Murthai and other place, you Sat Parkash accused committed rape upon the person of Sushila alias Punam and thereby you Sat Parkash commit and offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.
Fourthly:-That you Sarla and Hari Chand accused on 12.6.1992 in the area of Ganaur knowing that Kumari Sushila alias Punam has been kidnapped or has been abducted by Sat Parkash, co-accused and you both wrongfully concealed said Kumari Sushila alias Punam in your house at Ganaur and thereby you all committed an offence punishable under Section 368 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.
Fifthly:-That you all viz. Hari Chand, Sarla and Sat Parkash accused on 12.6.1992 in the area of Ganaur in furtherance of the common intention, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Kumari Sushila alias Punam when she was administered poison and thus you all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.”
2. It is not a matter of dispute, that the uncle-Hari Chand and aunt-Sarla (of Sat Parkash) have since been acquitted. The appellant Sat Parkash has also been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The surviving charges against the appellant are relatable only to Sections 363, 366, 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the “suicide note” executed by the deceased Sushila just before she attempted to commit suicide. It is not a matter of dispute, that the appellant -Sat Parkash, had also made a similar attempt to commit along with Sushila. While in the attempt, Sushila had died, but somehow Sat Parkash survived. The “suicide note” of Sushila is available on the record of this case as annexure P-6. The aforesaid “suicide note” was produced as exhibit 'DE' before the trial Court. The same is extracted hereunder:-
“Respected Papa and Mummy,
My Last Respect.
I, Sushila D/o Sh. Jagdish Tyagi had gone from my home of my free will and now according to you I cannot show my face to you but it will only be a misnomer that I am not pious as before but I continue to be pious as earlier. Please accept this as true because no person about to die will tell a lie.
Therefore I have decided that I am committing suicide because I only need Satto whom I cannot get while I am alive and will get him after death.
Therefore, I Sushila D/o Jagdish Tyagi declare that I shall be responsible for my own death and after my death no one should be held responsible for my death. Had I wanted so, I could have run away from home after taking money but I did not do so. I have loved Satto, and by dying I am leaving this writing as proof of my true love. After my death, no one should make any allegation against me because I am pious as the Ganges. If any one of you remembers me, then remember Satto prior to me.
Convey my last respects to all and kindly forgive us if possible, but I have done no wrong.
Yours unfortunate
Sushila
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.