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

2007 Supreme(P&H) 329

2007(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 1210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bhalla
Crl. Appeal No. 695-DB of 1997
Kewal Singh
v.
The State of Punjab
{Decided on 01/03/2007}

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. K.L. Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

IMPORTANT POINT
Murder--Dowry Death—Presence of dead body of the wife of accused at his house—No explanation has come forward from the accused--Conviction upheld.
Motive--It is neither obligatory nor incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the motive, but if it can provide to the court for appreciating the evidence, this would be additional circumstance to prove the chain of the version.


Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 313—Examination of accused—Presence of dead body of the wife of accused at his house—No explanation has come forward from the accused—In the absence of such an explanation on the part of the accused further advances the case of the prosecution towards the guilt of the accused. (Para 13)

       (B) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 8—Motive—Most heinous offences are committed for petty matters and some time for no motive but the court cannot sit idle and shift its responsibility to arrive at a particular conclusion as to who is responsible for the commission of the offence— Motive is not deciding factor criminal case and absence of motive does not speak of the innocence of the accused where direct evidence against the accused is overwhelming. (Para 14)

       (C) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 8—Motive--It is neither obligatory nor incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the motive, but if it can provide to the court for appreciating the evidence, this would be additional circumstance to prove the chain of the version. (Para 14)

       (D) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3—Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 304-B—Murder--Dowry Death—Appreciation of evidence—Relation witnesses—The members of the family if present at the time of occurrence are the most natural witnesses—Held; Question of any false implication does not arise since father and brother of the deceased would make every effort to nab the real culprit, who has cut short the life of their daughter. (Para 13)

       (E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154—First Information Report—One of the essential requisites to ensure a fair trial is that the First information Report in respect of a cognizable offence should be lodged as soon as possible and then sent to the ilIaqa Magistrate without any delay—The Courts have always insisted upon the prompt lodging of the report to the police. (Para 11)

       (F) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 304-B—Life imprisonment—Murder—Dowry Death—Appeal against conviction—Motive proved—Medical evidence discloses that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours due to asphyxia—Deceased also suffered blisters on account of electric shock as deposed by PW3 and PW2, the star witnesses—Entrustment of dowry articles proved recovery of dead body from accused house—No explanation on the part of the accused—Doctor, PW1, categorically deposed that blister are caused either by electric current or if some hot liquid falls on the body—Testimony of the witnesses regarding electric current cannot be disbelieved—Appeal dismissed. (Para 12 to 14)

       

JUDGMENT

H.S. Bhalla, J.:- The demand for dowry of money from the parents of the bride, has increased in the last few years and in the instant case, the husband has gone to the extent of killing his wife inside the privacy of a house and it is the duty of the Court while presiding over a criminal trial to see that no innocent man is punished, but at the same time, the Court is to see that a guilty man does not escape.

2. The appellant has knocked the door of this court against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar by virtue of which, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default thereof, he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. However, accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under:-

Narinder Kaur deceased daughter of Ajit Singh was married to Kewal Singh about five years before the occurrence. Out of this wedlock, they were blessed with one male issue. Kewal Singh was working at Bhopal as a Welder. Ajit Singh, being a poor person, had given no dowry at the time of marriage. About one and half months before the occurrence, Kewal Singh had come to his village Khela from Bhopal. He had asked Narinder Kaur to bring more dowry from her parental house as no dowry had been given at the time of marriage, otherwise she would be left at her parental house. About one month prior to the occurrence, she alone came to her parental house and started weeping. On inquiry, she disclosed that the accused wanted dowry, otherwise she would be killed. Ajit Singh and his son Mangal Singh had decided to provide dowry articles according to their capacity. She was sent back to the house of the accused with an assurance that dowry articles will be sent within 3-4 days. On this assurance, she went back and thereafter, a double bed, four chairs, a table, a box (Peti), utensils and clothes were purchased and the same were left at the house of the accused by Mangal Singh in the Peter Rehra of Daljit Singh alias Kala. Deceased at that time had told Mangal Singh that the accused wanted cash payment of Rs.10,000/- as he was to construct some rooms. Ajit Singh lifted committee for Rs. 4,000/- from Anokh Singh at loss. On 20.04.1996 Ajit Singh and his son Mangal Singh went to the house of the accused at village Khela. The said amount was paid to the accused, but he had stated that the amount was insufficient. Both of them stayed at the house of the accused due to pitched darkness during the night. After taking meals, Narinder Kaur deceased and the accused went to sleep in a room while Ajit Singh and his son Mangal Singh went to sleep in the courtyard,. At about 12.30 A.M. shriek of Narinder Kaur deceased was heard and they both got up. They knocked at the door of the room but the same was not opened. An electric lamp was emitting light inside the room. When a push was given by Mangal Singh, window opened and it was found that the accused was giving electric current to the deceased on the right side of the neck, while she was lying on a cot. On an alarm raised, the accused left the electric wire there and strangulated her with a piece of cloth. On the alaram raised, the persons residing in neighbourhood also started giving calls. The accused, in the meantime, by opening the door, ran away taking away the said piece of cloth. They both went inside and found that Narinder Kaur had expired. They remained with the dead body throughout the night.

3. On 21.04.1996 during morning time, Ajit Singh, leaving Mangal Singh at the spot, proceeded to the police station to lodge a report. On his way, in the area of village Fatehabad, he met SI Narinder Singh at ‘T’ point Khela during the course of Naqa held by them. Ajit Singh suffered statement, Ex.
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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