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

2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 6105

Rajesh Bindal, J
Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shubhranshu Padhi
For the Respondents: not specified

Insufficient evidence of cruelty or harassment immediately before death prevents conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, reaffirming the presumption's reliance on demonstrated acts of coercive behavior.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304B, 498A and 201 - The appellant's conviction under charges relating to dowry death and cruelty was challenged. The evidence was found insufficient to support the conviction, as there was no coercion or demand for dowry just before the deceased's death. (Paras 4, 5, 21, 24)

(B) Presumption of dowry death - In this case, the court reinforced that the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act can only be invoked with substantial evidence of recent cruelty or harassment linked to dowry demands. (Paras 10, 12, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant's wife died under suspicious circumstances, allegedly due to harassment for dowry. Evidence included testimonies regarding past dowry demands but lacked proof of coercion or threats immediately prior to death. (Paras 2, 16, 22)

Findings of Court:
Conviction could not be justified due to non-fulfillment of essential requirements for invoking presumption under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B IEA. (Paras 21, 24)

Issues: Whether the prior demands for dowry constituted sufficient grounds for conviction, considering the lack of immediate evidence of cruelty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that mere death within seven years of marriage does not suffice to prove dowry death without concurrent evidence of cruelty or harassment prior to the death.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

JUDGEMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The appellant, who was husband of the deceased, has filed the present appeal challenging his conviction and sentence under sections 304B, 498A and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘ IPC ’). The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304B , 2 years under Section 498A and 2 years under Section 2 01 IPC . However, the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital had reduced the sentence of the appellant under Section 304B IPC from ten years to seven years.

Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.04.20 16:49:17 IST Reason:

    Signature Not Verified

2. The appellant and deceased Chhilo Kaur got married in the year 1993. The deceased was residing in her matrimonial home. On 24.6.1995 at 6.15 p.m. father of the deceased, Pratap Singh (PW-1) filed complaint with the P.S. Jaspur stating that his daughter Chhilo Kaur was married to the appellant about two years ago. In the marriage, he had given sufficient dowry as per his status. Two months after the marriage, his daughter came to her parental home and told the complainant (PW-1) that her in-laws are asking her to bring a motorcycle as the same was not given in dowry. The complainant pacified his daughter stating that at present he is not capable of giving motorcycle, however, whenever he is in a position to do so, he will certainly give and sent his daughter back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, whenever his daughter came to the parental home, she used to talk about the demand of motorcycle and subsequently after about one year of marriage, the demand for land was also made. Every time he used to pacify his daughter and sent her back. On the previous day i.e. on 23.6.1995, one Jagir Singh of village Bhogpur Dam, where his daughter lived after marriage with the appellant came to complainant and told him that his daughter, Chhilo Kaur has been murdered by her in-laws. On getting the information, the complainant along with his wife came to village Bhogpur Dam on 24.6.1995 and were shocked to know that on 22.6.1995 in the morning at about 8.00 a.m., his daughter was beaten up and strangulated to death by her husband Charan Singh, (the appellant herein), brother-in-law, Gurmeet Singh (accused no.2) and mother-in-law Santo Kaur (accused no.3). They had cremated the dead body without even informing the complainant. She was killed on account of non-fulfilment of demand of motorbike and land in dowry. The matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed against Charan Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Santo Kaur.

3. The prosecution examined six witnesses and defence examined one witness. The Trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, convicted Charan Singh (appellant), Gurmeet Singh and Santo Kaur under Sections 304B , 498A and 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 304B IPC , rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 498A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 201 IPC .

In appeal filed by the convicts before the High Court, the conviction and sentence of Gurmeet Singh (brother-in-law) and Santo Kaur (mother-in-law) under Section 304B , 498A and 201 IPC were set aside and they were acquitted of the charges, whereas the conviction of the appellant was upheld. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years under Section 304B IPC , awarded to the appellant was reduced to seven years. It is the aforesaid judgment of the High Court which is under challenge in the present appeal.

4. Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, learned counsel who was requested to assist the Court as an amicus curiae on account of absence of the counsel who filed the appeal, submitted that the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be legally sustained either under Sections 304B or 498A IPC . The pre- requisites for raising presumption under Section 304B IPC is that soon before the






                    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