LexBAKSHISH RAM & ANOTHER versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2013] 4 S.C.R. 732 BAKSHISH RAM & ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 969 of 2009) MARCH 12, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.3048 - Dowry death - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: Prosecution failed to C establish its case beyond reasonable doubt - Courts below committed an error in convicting the accused - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.113 B. Evidence Act, 1872 - s.60 - Oral evidence - Based on 0 hearsay evidence - Admissibility - Held: Such oral evidence is not admissible. Appeal - Appellate jurisdiction of High Court - In criminal appeal - Held: As a first court of appeal, High Court should record its own findings after independent assessment of E evidence. Appellants-accused Nos.1 and 2 alongwith accused No.3 were prosecuted ulss. 3048 and 498A IPC. Trial court convicted all the three accused and sentenced F them to RI for 7 years. During pendency of the appeal before High Court, the appeal abated so far as A-3 is concerned due to his death. High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of A-1 and A-2. Hence the present appeal. G H Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The prosecution failed to establish its guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court and the High Court committed an error in convicting the 732 BAKSHISH RAM v. STATE OF l?UNJAB 733 appellants and the same are liable to be set aside. [Para A 15] [[7 44-A-B] 2. The High Court, as a first Court of appeal, on facts must apply its independent mind and record its own findings on the basi:; of its own assessment of evidence. 8 Mere reproduction of the assessment of trial court may not be sufficient and in the absence of independent assessment by the High Court, its ultimate decision cannot be sustained. [Para 10] [741-E] Sakatar Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2004) 11 C SCC 291; Arun Kumar Sharma vs. State of Bihar (2010) 1 SCC 108: 2009 (14) SCR 1023 - relied on. 3. PW-2, i.e. the mother of the deceased has not stated anything in her evidence with regard to o harassment or mal-treatment of the deceased by the appellants on the basis of her personal knowledge rather admittedly her knowledge is hearsay since her whole narration in this regard in the court was based on whatsoever was stated to her by her husband. Under E Section 60 of the Evidence Act hearsay evidence was not admissible as husband of PW2 was not examined before the court and no other witness was produced by the prosecution to prove about mal-treatment and harassment of the deceased by the appellants. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 3048 IPC were not met by the prosecution for holding the appellants guilty under the said offence. Even otherwise, since the demands made F by the appellants were met by the parents of the deceased, there was no reason for the appellants to set the deceased on fire. Even the other witness, i.e. PW-3 G who was a resident of the village nowhere stated in his deposition before the Court with regard to any mal- treatment to the deceased or being aware of any such incident. Hence, his evidence is not helpful insofar as the allegation of harassment and mal-treatment is concerned. H 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R. A The prosecution has not pressed into service any other witness to prove the demand of dowry, harassment and mal-treatment. [Para 9] [740-G-H; 741-A-D] 4. A perusal of Section 1138 of the Evidence Act and B Section 3048 IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. In other words, the prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the "death occurring otherwise than in normal C circumstances". The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence, there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental D equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. In the instant case, the prosecution heavily relied on the only evidence of PW-2- mother of the deceased which is a hearsay, in any event, a very general and vague statement which is not sufficient to attract the E above provisions. In such circumstances, accidental death cannot be ruled out. It is also relevant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.