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

1988 Supreme(P&H) 643

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.C. Ray and M.H. Kania, JJ.
Wazir Chand - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2827 of 1988 with Crl. Appeal No. 507.
Decided On : 1 December, 1988

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Uma Datta and Mr. H.M. Singh, Advocates.
For the Appellant :Mr. Mahabir Singh, Advocate.

The interpretation of Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC and the application of these provisions to the facts of the case.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - DOWRY DEATH - SECTION 306 AND 498-A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 306 AND 498-A - LEGAL PRINCIPLES APPLIED.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh, were convicted by the trial court and the High Court for abetting the suicide of Veena, the wife of Kanwar Singh, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and for subjecting her to cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellants and Krishna Devi, the wife of Wazir Chand, were harassing Veena for dowry and that she committed suicide by setting herself on fire.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the evidence on record did not establish with the degree of certainty required in criminal law that Veena committed suicide. The Court also held that there was ample evidence to show that repeated demands were made for dowry articles and money on Veena and her parents, which amounted to cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC.

Issues: 1. Whether the evidence on record established that Veena committed suicide. 2. Whether the appellants subjected Veena to cruelty.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 306 of the IPC requires that it must be established that the person committed suicide. In the present case, there was no clear evidence like a suicide note or statement by Veena indicating that she had taken her own life. 2. Section 498-A of the IPC defines cruelty as the harassment of a woman by her husband or his relatives with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. In the present case, there was ample evidence that repeated demands were made for dowry articles and money on Veena and her parents, which amounted to cruelty.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellants under Section 306 of the IPC but confirmed their conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC. The Court also dismissed the State's petition for enhancement of the sentence under Section 306 of the IPC.


JUDGMENT

Kania, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court convicting the appellants, namely, Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh of offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. A few facts are necessary for the purpose of disposing of this appeal.

2. Appellant No. 1, Wazir Chand and appellant No. 2, his son Kanwar Singh, are both residents of Faridabad. The deceased Veena was married to Kanwar Singh on October 16, 1983. On June 10, 1984, within less than a year of her marriage, Veena died after having sustained burn injuries at the residence of her husband Kanwar Singh who was living with his father Wazir Chand. She sustained burn injuries at about,6/6.30 a.m. on June 10, 1984 and was taken to the Geeta Nursing Home where she died at about 11 a.m. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants and Krishna Devi wife of Wazir Chand, not being satisfied with the dowry given at the time of Veenas marriage, were making demands for further articles of dowry from Veena and her relatives and were harassing, humiliating and insulting Veena and she was driven to commit suicide by setting herself on fire. The case appears to be that she sprinkled kerosene on her clothes and set herself on fire. This incident occurred in the kitchen of Wazir Chands resident. It is also the case of the prosecution that, although Veena cried, the noise of her cries were suppressed by someone in Wazir Chands family by putting on loudly a radio or television set and that the neighbours and outsiders whose attention was attracted by the cries of Veena were prevented from entering the residence as the doors were shut. It was also alleged by the prosecution that there was deliberate delay in taking Veena to the Geeta Nursing Home where she died, and that she was deliberately taken to Geeta Nursing Home where adequate facilities for treatment of burn injuries were not available instead of the Badshah Khan Hospital, which is also known as the Civil Hospital, where better treatment for burn injuries was available as known to the appellants. The appellant, Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh as well as Krishna Devi, the wife of Wazir Chand were charged and tried before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad under Sections 306 and 498A respectively of the Indian Penal Code. The defence taken by the accused was that Veena did not commit suicide but her clothes accidentally caught fire when she was preparing tea for the family over a stove. The allegations regarding harassment of Veena for dowry were also denied. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Krishna Devi but convicted Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh under the aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code. Kanwar Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-for the conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and the payment of a fine of Rs. 100/- for the conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. As far as Wazir Chand is concerned, it was held that he played the more important and active part in putting pressure on Veena for dowry articles and causing harassment to her. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and payment of a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/- for the conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh preferred an appeal to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana against the decision of learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned single Judge of the High Court disposed of the said appeal confirming the conviction of both the accused i.e. Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh but reduced the sentence of Wazir Chand under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to a period of three ye








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