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

2007 Supreme(UK) 340

2008 N.C.C. 6
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Rajeev Gupta and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.C.S. Rawat
SHAKTI SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 2001
Decided on : 14.06.2007

Advocates:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Govt. Advocate

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 304-B — Appellant convicted U/Sec. 304-B IPC — According to the prosecution the incident took place in the intervening night of 20/21st Oct., 1986 — And the body of deceased was found hanging from a Khinna tree at about 4 P.M. on 21.10.86 — Sec. 304-B IPC was inserted by an amendment Act No. 43 of 1986 — It was made inforceable w.e.f. 19.11.1986 — It is apparent that the date when the incident took place — There was no offence punishable U/Sec. 304-B IPC — As such appellant can not be convicted U/Sec. 304-B IPC — Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted U/Sec. 304-B IPC. (Para 22)

       (B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 302 and 302/149 — Trial Court convicted the husband only U/Sec. 302 IPC — While charges against co-accused (mother-in-law and two sister-in-law of deceased) not proved and they were acquitted — Appeal against conviction — The conviction U/Sec. 302 IPC is permissible only if the independent act of the accused - convict, causing injury to the deceased is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased — Even if the acquittal of the co-accused is recorded wrongly on incorrect findings — The High Court can set-aside these findings and record conviction of the sale accused with the aid of Sec. 149 IPC — Though in absence of appeal against acquittal of co-accused acquittal of co-accused stood good — But when acquittal of co-accused was not based on perverse finding, the accused - convict could not be convicted U/Sec. 302 IPC— Conviction accordingly set aside 2006 (1) Crimes 67 relied on. (Para 6)

       ¼v½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] ?kkjk-304-B & vihykFkhZ dks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 304-B esa nks"kfl) fd;k x;k & vfHk;kstu ds vuqlkj ?kVuk fnukad 20@21 vDVwcj] 1986 dh jkf= dks ?kfVr gqbZ & vkSj e`rd dk 'kjhj fnukad 21-10-1986 dks lka; 4 cts f[kuk ds isM+ ij yVdk ik;k x;k & Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk-304-B ,d la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e la[;k 43 lu~ 1986 ds }kjk Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa tksM+h xbZ & rFkk ;g fnukad 19-11-1986 dks ykxw dh xbZ & ;g nf'kZr gS fd og fnukad ftl fnu ?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZ] ml fnu rd /kkjk 304-B Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha Fkk & bl dkj.k vfHk;qDr dks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 304-B esa nks"kfl) ugha fd;k tk ldrk & bl dkj.k vihykFkhZ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 304-B esa nks"keqDr gksus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ¼izLrj 22½

       ¼c½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk&302 vkSj 302@149 & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk dsoy ifr dks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 302 esa nks"kfl) fd;k x;k & tc fd vkjksi i= vU; lg&vfHkqDrksa ¼lkl ,oa 2 uUnksa½ ds fo#) lkfcr u gksus ds dkj.k mUgsa nks"k eqDr fd;k x;k & nks"kflf) ds fo#) vihy & Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 302 esa nks"kflf) dsoy rHkh vuqKs; gS tcfd nks"kh@vfHk;qDr ds O;fDrxr dk;Z }kjk e`rd dks ,slh i;kZIr pksVsa igqapkbZ xbZ gks tks fd izdfr ds lkekU; vuqde esa e`R;q ds fy;s i;kZIr gS & pkgs vU; lg&vfHkqDrksa dks mDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij gh nks"keqDr D;ksa u dj fn;k x;k gks & mPp U;k;ky; ,sls fu"d"kZ dks [kf.Mr dj ldrh gS vkSj /kkjk 149 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds lkFk ,d ek= vfHk;qDr dks nf.Mr dj ldrh gS & ;|fi lg&vfHkqDrksa dks nks"keqfDr ds fo#) vihy u gksus ds dkj.k lg&vfHkqDrksa dh nks"keqfDr mfpr gS & ijUrq tc lg&vfHkqDrksa dh nks"keqfDr] vfHk;qDr dh vuqfpr fu"d"kZ ij vk/kkfjr u gks rks vfHk;qDr nks"kh dks vUrxZr /kkjk 302 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa nks"kfl) ugha fd;k tk ldrk & nks"kflf) rnkuqlkj fujLr dh tkrh gS 2006 ¼1½ dkbEl 67 dk vuqlj.kA ¼izLrj 6½

JUDGMENT

(Per : Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.)

1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 28.09.1989, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1988, whereby the appellant Shakti Singh has been convicted u/s 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860; (hereinafter as I.P.C.) & u/s 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and seven years respectively.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the father of the deceased had died in the year 1965. Deceased Basanti Devi daughter of Smt. Bindu Devi was married with the appellant Shakti Singh on 03.02.1984. The appellant Shakti Singh was employed in the Indian Army. Smt. Bhundra Devi was mother-in-law of the deceased; Smt. Dhanna Devi and Smt. Vidhata Devi were sisters-in-law (Bhabhi) of the appellant Shakti Singh and Smt. Sulochana was sister of the appellant Shakti Singh. On 22.10.1986 at about 10:00 a.m., two persons of Village Nalai came to the mother of the deceased and informed her that her daughter Smt. Basanti Devi has committed suicide by hanging herself from a tree. After receiving the information about the death of the deceased, Smt. Bindu Devi alongwith her son Mohan Singh reached at village Nalai where they found Basanti Devi dead. It was also found by the Smt. Bindu Devi that there were burn as well as other bodily injuries on the person of the deceased. The Gram Pradhan had already informed Patwari vide Ex. Ka. 3 that Smt. Basanti Devi has committed suicide by hanging herself from a Khinna tree. Pursuant to said report lodged by the Gram Pradhan about the suicide of the deceased, the patti patwari Rajendra Singh visited the spot, prepared the site plan and panchayatnama. He also prepared the necessary papers and sent the dead body for post mortem on 22.10.1986. The post mortem was conducted in District Hospital Pauri by Dr. Rajeev Hatwal. The Patwari did not lodge any report against the accused so the mother of the deceased submitted an application on 23.10.1986 Ex. Ka. 1 to the S.D.M. concerned narrating the entire facts of the case. She also stated in her application that whenever her daughter used to come to her parental house she always complained about the torture and harassment meted out to her on account of dowry on the part of her husband and his other family members. Smt. Bindu Devi further stated in the application that she could not fulfill the demand of dowry of the husband & his family members so they committed murder of the deceased Basanti Devi. It was also alleged in the application that the deceased did not commit suicide but she was murdered by appellant Shakti Singh and his co-accused. On the application submitted by the informant Bindu Devi, the S.D.M. directed the Naib Tehsildar to investigate the matter. Thereafter, the Naib Tehsildar directed the Supervisor Kanoongo to register the case and investigate the matter immediately. The Supervisor Kanoongo took the investigation in his hand and made the necessary endorsement in the G.D. On 25.10.1986, he took all the documents from the Patwari Rajendra Singh regarding the case of the deceased. The Investigating Officer after completing the necessary formalities of the investigation submitted the chargesheet Ex. Ka. 12 before the court.

3. After submission of chargesheet, the accused were committed to the court of Sessions for trial and the trial court framed charges u/s 147, 302/149 and 304-B I.P.C. against the accused. The accused denied the charges levelled against them and claimed their trial.

4. Prosecution in support of its case examined Bindu Devi PW1 complainant. She is the mother of the deceased Basanti Devi. She has stated that her daughter was married with accused Shakti Singh. She has narrated the entire story as unfolded from the application submitted by her to the S.D.M. on 23.10.1986. Mohan Singh PW2 is brother of the deceased Basanti Devi. He has corroborated the evidence of her mother Bindu Devi PW1. Dr. Rajeev Hatwal PW3 is Medical O




















































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