LexBHAGWAN DAS versus KARTAR SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ~ BHAGWANDAS v KARTAR SfNGH AND ORS. B MAY 14, 2007 (S.B. SfNHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] I Penal Code, J 86U-s.306 rlw s.107-Abetment for Suicide-Allegation >- c that suicide committed due to dowry demand-Charges framed u/s 30614981 34 !PC-Charge under 306 quashed by High Court with direction to frame charge u/s 498-A /PC-On appeal, Held: charges u/s 306 rightly quashed- Mere harassment of wife due to differences per se does not attract s. 306 rl w s. 107-However, if suicide was due to dowry demand soon before her D death, thens. 304 B may be attracted-But action cannot be taken thereunder, charge not having been framed under that provision. Trial Court framed charges u/s 306/498/34 IPC against the four accused ~ persons-respondents on the basis of the allegations that due to prolonged ill- treatment and harassment of the deceased for not having brought sufficient .. E dowry and for giving birth to a girl child, who brought bad luck to the family, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. In revision petition thereagainst, High Court held that charges u/s 306/34 IPC were not made out and remitted the matter to trial court for framing charges u/s 498-A/34 IPC. Hence the present appeal by the father of the deceased. F Dismissing the Appeal, the Court HELD: Mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se T does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, if the wife commits suicide. However, if the suicide was due to demand of dowry soon before her death then Section 3048 IPC may be attracted, whether it is a case of homicide G or suicide. In the present case, since no charge under Section 3048 IPC has been framed, obviously the accused cannot be convicted under that provision. [Paras 16 and 17) [478-H; 479-A-8) Mahendra Singh and Anr. v. State of MP., [1995) Supp 3 SCC 731 and Randhir Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, [2004) 13 SCC 129, relied on H 474 BHAGWAN DAS v. KART AR SINGH [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 475 ~ Brij Lal v. Prem Chand and Anr., AIR (1989) SC 1661; Netai Dutta v. A State of West Bengal, JT (2005) 3 SC 46; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2000[ 5 SCC 207; Satvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr .. (2001 j 8 SCC 633 and Smt. Shanti and Anr. ,., State of Haryana, AIR (1991) SC 1261, referred to CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 720 of B 2007. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 18 .07 .2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Cr!. Revision No. 188 of 2005. Suresh Chand and Goodwill Indeveer for the Appellant. R. Mohan, ASG., O.P. Saxena, Usha Saxena, M.A. Chinnasamy, Ranjana Narayan and P. Parmeswaran for the Repondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 18.7.2006 in Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2005. The c D said judgment was delivered on a Criminal Revision filed by the accused appellant against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court E dated 28.2.2005 framing charges under Section 306/498/34 IPC against the accused persons. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The prosecution case is that on the night intervening I st and 2nd F March, 2000, the deceased (Shobha) had committed suicide at about 2.00 a.m. by hanging herself from the ceiling of a room in the matrimonial home. It is alleged that she married Mangal Singh (since deceased) on 23.1.1992 and a girl child was born to them in the year 1999. Soon thereafter, in an accident, the said Mangal Singh became paralysed. It appears that the deceased (Shobha) G did not leave any suicide note. It is the case of the prosecution that after her marriage, Shobha was being taunted for bringing less dowry and was being harassed on account therefore. A sum of Rs.50,000/- is alleged to have been given by her father a few days after her marriage to Mangal Singh for his business as he was allegedly unemployed. It is further the case of the prosecution that Mangal Singh squandered the said sum of Rs.50,000/- in H 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A gambling and drinking and thereafter he raised a further demand of Rs.2 lakhs which could not be fulfilled. The prosecution also alleges that Shobha was ill-treated and harassed by the present petitioners as she was not able to give birth to a child and this harassment continued till
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.