Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Ritu Bahri, J.
Mangat Singh @ Manjit Singh – Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. S-218-SB of 2014
Decided On : 25-01-2017
For the Appellant :G.S. Ghuman, Advocate
For the Respondent: A.P.S. Gill, A.A.G. Punjab
The sufficiency of a dying declaration as the sole basis for conviction, the requirement for corroboration, and the need to prove allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty.
Headnote:
Dowry Harassment - Indian Penal Code - Section 306, Section 498-A
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Sections 306/498 of the Indian Penal Code based on the dying declaration of the deceased, who alleged harassment and demand of dowry. However, the appellants appealed the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration without corroboration of independent witnesses is insufficient in law.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the dying declaration was the sole basis for the conviction, but it lacked corroboration and failed to establish the alleged demand of dowry. The Court also noted the absence of evidence supporting the prosecution's case of cruelty and demand for dowry, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of the dying declaration as the sole basis for conviction, the absence of corroboration, and the failure to prove the alleged demand of dowry and cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for corroboration of a dying declaration and the importance of proving the alleged demand of dowry and cruelty. It also highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The accused were acquitted from the charges based on the lack of corroboration for the dying declaration and the failure to prove the alleged demand of dowry and cruelty.
Ritu Bahri, J.
This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment under Section s 306/498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) substantially for a period of six years.
2. It is necessary to mention here that the appellants have expired during the pendency of the appeal and the present appeal is being heard on the application filed by son of appellant No. 1-Mangat Singh @ Manjit Singh, which was allowed by this Court on 11.07.2016, as the claim of family pension will be decided after finalization of this appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.03.2013, a wireless message was received from SHO, P.S. City, Dhrui regarding the hospitalization of Jasbir Kaur due to burn injuries. On reaching there, it was found that Jasbir Kaur was referred to Rajindra Hospital and when ASI Sarabjit Singh was on the way to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, he was informed telephonically by complainant Harwinder Singh that Jasbir Kaur had been referred to Government Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and when ASI Sarabjit Singh reached the hospital, he found that Jasbir Kaur was not fit to make the statement and thus the statement of Harwinder Singh (brother of Jasbir Kaur) was recorded to the effect that his sister was married to Mangat Singh-appellant No. 1 on 08.12.2002 and in-laws of his sister were not happy regarding the dowry and they used to harass his sister. The husband of his sister used to give beatings to Jasbir Kaur while raising demand of dowry. Number of Panchayats were convened and 15 days prior to the occurrence, appellants gave beating to his sister while raising demands of dowry and Jasbir Kaur was brought to the village Bhasaur by his mother Ranjit Kaur. After Gurdev Singh and Mangat Singh apologized about 07 days prior to the occurrence, she was sent back. On the fateful day, complainant received message regarding suffering of burn injuries by Jasbir Kaur and regarding her treatment.
4. Investigation was conducted and the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused persons in the Court.
5. After presentation of the challan and complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C and on finding that Section 306 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the learned Area Magistrate committed the case for trial. Thereafter, finding a prima facie against the accused, they were charge sheeted under Sections 306/498 of the Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 06 witnesses and thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed.
7. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C but they denied the allegations levelled against them.
8. The Court below convicted and sentenced the accused on the sole dying declaration (Ex PW6/E) of Jasbir Kaur, which was being recorded by the then learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula, as all the star witnesses turned hostile.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the dying declaration (Ex PW6/E) without corroboration of independent witnesses is nothing in the law and thus, the appellants are liable to be acquitted.
10. Learned counsel has further argued that from the perusal of the dying declaration (Ex PW6/E) or the FIR or in the entire evidence produced by the prosecution on record, no offence is made out against the accused.
11. Learned counsel submits that Jasbir Kaur married to appellant No. 1 ten years back and after ten years, it cannot be said that the deceased committed suicide due to demand of dowry or harassment by the accused.
12. Learned counsel further argued that father-in-law and mother-in-law of Jasbir Kaur were residing separately from the deceased since long. The pr
