LexBALJINDER KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 985 BALJINDER KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2011) NOVEMBER 19, 2014 [T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: s. 304-8- Dowry death - Death by poisoning - Demand of gold bangle two months after marriage - Except one stray demand of gold bangle, there C · was no other evidence to show that the victim-deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry by the appellant-sister-in-law soon before her death - Conviction u/s.304-8 is therefore not maintainable however evidence on record made out offence uls.498-A, /PC. D Investigation: Role of investigating officer- Held: Any omission and commission by the investigating officer may result in miscarriage of justice - Investigating officer must be trained to adopt proper techniques of investigation and E scientific temper must be inculcated in them and investigation must be conducted in unbiased manner. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In his evidence, even though PW-4 (father of the deceased) had stated about the 'dying declaration' F alleging that accused have beaten her and administered poison, FIR was registered only under Section 304B IPC. Investigation was not focused in the direction of the alleged 'dying declaration'. The investigating officer had not investigated whether in the house of accused there G was aluminium phosphide poison which is stated to be 'pesticide' and whether the accused could have administered poison to the victim-deceased. The investigation lacked credibility as the same was not H 985 986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. A focused in the light of the contents of the complaint. [Para 9][990-G-H; 991-A-B] 2. The criminal investigation plays an important and special role in the administration of criminal justice. Any omission and commission by the investigating officer B may result in miscarriage of justice. Being the foundation stone of the prosecution, the investigating officer must be trained to adopt proper techniques of investigation and scientific temper must be inculcated in them. The investigation must be conducted in an unbiased manner C and investigation must be with objectivity and dispassionate approach to men and matters and the investigating officer must make a truthful presentation of the materials collected. [Para 10)[991-B; E-F] 0 3. In cases related to dowry death, the circums-tances showing the cruelty or harassment are not restricted to a particular instance, but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct of cruelty or dowry harassment must be "soon before death". The testimony E of the father of the deceased PW-4 showed that the appellant demanded gold karra two months after the solemnization of marriage of the deceased and the demand was not "soon before her death". Excepting one stray instance of demand of dowry, there was no F material on record to connect the appellant with the persistent demand for dowry. Admittedly, the appellant was married about six years prior to the solemnization of marriage of deceased with her brother. The appellant has got three children and she lives in her in-law's house. There was no evidence showing any persistent dowry G demand or the conduct o( the appellant subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry. About twenty days prior to the occurrence, when the deceased went to her father's house, she only H BALJINDER KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 987 generally stated about the dowry demand. She had not A specifically stated about the demand of dowry by the appellant. The alleged demand of gold karra about two months after the marriage cannot be said to constitute a proximate live link with the death of deceased and the conviction of the appellant under Section 3048 IPC B · cannot be sustained. Even though there was no evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry "soon before her death" by the appellant, evidence on record makes out an offence under Section 498A IPC. C [Paras 20 to 22][996-E-H; 997-A; C-D] Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734 : 2003 (8) SCC 80; Kamesh Panjiyar alias Kamlesh Panjiyat v. State of Bihar 2005 (1) SCR 903: (2005) 2 SCC 388; Thakkan Jha & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 348; Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab 2008 (11) SCR 828 : (2008) 13 SCC 233 - relied on.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.