Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 355
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2012
JASWANT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WITH Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2012
SURJEET SINGH & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
Decided on : 10.07.2013
For the Appellant :Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Chaudhury, Addl. G.A.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 304-B and Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 113-B — Dowry death — Presumption to — Demand of dowry by accused was not made at time of engagement or marriage — Also, alleged demand of Color TV, doubtful, reason being that there was no electric connection available in house of accused — Prosecution also failed to prove that victim was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for demand of dowry — Thus, presumptions as to dowry death not drawn. (Paras 20, 21, 24)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Secs. 306, 107 — Abetment to commit suicide — Absence of mens rea — Allegation of demand of dowry and harassment — Prosecution failed to prove such demand of dowry at time of engagement or marriage and also failed to prove any harassment for demand of dowry with mens rea to drive wife to commit suicide — Accused not found guilty for offence u/s 306 of Penal Code. (Paras 28, 29)
¼v½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 304&ch vkSj lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] /kkjk 113&ch & ngst gR;k & mi/kkj.kk & opuca/k ;k fookg ds le; vfHk;qDr }kjk ngst dh ek¡x ugha djh xbZ Fkh & dfFkr jaxhu Vh-oh- dh ek¡x Hkh lansgiw.kZ pw¡fd vijk/kh ds x`g esa fctyh dusD’ku ugha Fkk & vfHk;kstu Hkh fl) djus esa vlQy Fkk fd ihfM+rk ij e`R;q ls ‘kh?kz iwoZ ngst dh ek¡x ds fy, Øwjrk dkfjr Fkh & bl izdkj ngst gR;k dh mi/kkj.kk dks fudkyk ugha tk ldrkA ¼izLrj 20] 21] 24½
¼c½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 306] 107 & vkRegR;k ds fy, nq”izsfjr djuk & vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr dh vuqifLFkfr & ngst dh ek¡x o mRihM+u dk vkjksi & vfHk;kstu i{k vlQy jgk Fkk fl) djus esa fd opuca/k ;k fookg ds le; ngst dh ek¡x djh xbZ Fkh vkSj ;g Hkh fl) djus esa vlQy fd iRuh ij ngst dh ek¡x ds fy, Øwjrk dkfjr Fkh ftl dkj.k iRuh }kjk vkRegR;k djh xbZ Fkh & vfHk;qDr dks ;w@,l 306] n.M lafgrk vijk/k dk nks”kh ugha ik;k x;kA ¼izLrj 28] 29½
Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral).
Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.01.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 301 of 2008 whereby appellants were held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, 316 IPC and were sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 316 IPC with the stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW1 Jagdish Singh lodged an FIR on 10.10.2008 with police station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar stating therein that his daughter Manjeet Kaur was got married with one Jaswant Singh, son of Balvinder Singh, resident of Ashok Farm, police station Khatima, 7 months ago; he had given gifts and other items, in dowry, at the time of her marriage, as per his financial status; after 2-3 months of her marriage, Jaswant Singh (husband), his father Balvinder Singh, his brother Surjeet Singh @ Santu and his mother Jageer Kaur started taunting his daughter, saying that your father had not given anything to us, at the time of marriage, therefore, she should bring motorcycle and colour TV from her parents; his daughter told this fact to them, after coming to her parental house; on this, they went to the matrimonial house of Manjeet Kaur and tried to explain her in-laws that they were poor people, therefore, they would not be able to give anything; on this, her in-laws agreed but after some time, they again started torturing his daughter to bring the aforesaid items from her parents, however, his daughter did not leave her matrimonial house; on 10.10.2008, all the four accused persons killed his daughter by administering her poison; he received the information at about 04.00 p.m. about death of his daughter; thereafter, he along with some villagers went to Ashok Farm and with the help of police dead body of his daughter was taken to Government Hospital; therefore, after registering the FIR necessary action may be taken.
2. Inquest report was prepared on the next day i.e. on 11.10.2008, in the presence of PW1, PW2, Lal Singh, Darshan Singh, Amar Singh, PW6 Sher Singh Ereda, Tehsildar, Khatima. As per inquest report, she was wearing 14 glass bangles and one Kada in left hand and 16 glass bangles in right hand. It was further mentioned in the inquest report that dead body was not having any injury mark except one old injury mark on her right elbow.
3. Post mortem was conducted on 11.10.2008 at about 01.30 p.m. During postmortem, small abrasions, in the upper & lower lip and on the right elbow were found and cause of death could not be ascertained, however, viscera were preserved. As per viscera report (Exhibit Ka – 8), aluminum phosphide was found in stomach, intestine, liver, kidney and spleen.
4. Having investigated the matter, Investigating Officer PW8 Amit Srivastava, Dy. S.P. submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under Section 304-B, 316 IPC.
5. After committal of the case, trial court was pleased to frame charges against appellants for the offences punishable under Section 304-B, 316 IPC. Appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.
6. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 Jagdish Singh (father of deceased), PW2 Malkeet Singh (maternal uncle of deceased), PW3 Kuldeep Singh (brother of deceased), PW4 Charanjeet Singh (village Pradhan), PW5 Dr. I.A. Khan, PW6 Sher Singh Ereda, Tehsildar Khatima, PW7 Head Constable Govind Singh Negi, PW8 Amit Srivastava, Dy. S. P., Investigating Officer, PW9 Sub Inspector Sher Singh were examined and thereafter, statements of accused /appellants were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. From the side of defence, Kulwant Singh DW1 was examined.
7. Having perused the entire material made available on record, learned trial court was pleased to convict & sentence the appellants vide judgment and order under appeal.
8. I have
