BHAGWANT SINGH versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 06-05-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'Y.· 
109 
BHAGWANT SINGH 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI 
May6, 1983 
[P. N. BHAGWAT! AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 11 of 1974), Section 174-Police 
enquiry, investigation and_report on receipt of inforniation ihat a person has 
commitied suicide and inquest by the Magistrate-Court's poWer lo exandne, 
before the commencement of a trial, whether the police authorities conducted 
themselves as law and justice required of them, as a petltion under -Article 32 of 
the Constitution--,.Probative value of investigation by the Police, including· re· 
covery of material objects to connect the crime, recording of ·Statements of all 
important witnesses etc. etc. explained, and suggestions for extension of Coroners' 
Act, 1871 i<> all Siates made-Constitution of India, .Article 32, Code of Crintina/ 
Procedure, 1973, Sections l'.3(2), 174 & 175. 
The petitioner Bhagwant Singh a n1ember of the Indian ReYenue Service 
applied to the CQurt for intervention and necessary relief in the matter of the 
death of his married daughter Gurinder Kaur alieging thilt -due to ·se\'eral 
circumstances he was convinced that his daughter was murdered in the· house 
of her parent's-in-law by burning her and that, the pO!ice' investigation \Vas 
improper an.d irregular and ineffective. 
AcCording to the petitioner : , (i) that he and his daughter were opposed 
to the evils of ihe dowry system and t~erefore, with a stipulation that no 4owry · 
should be demanded at the time. of the marriage he gave his daughter to. one 
Amarjit Sirigh, son of -his colleague Kartar Singh Sawhney and a· friend for 
·over thirty years; (ii) that after the marriage his daughter came to be ill-treated 
by her mother-in-law hinting that gifts and jewellery were expected from her 
parents and srich oppressive tensions at home resulted in the mis,carriage of.a 
child, from which time. onwards the n1other~in~law taunted her saying that 
unless she observed the family tradition of presenting a necklace to her 111otlit:r-
in-law she would remain without a child; (iii) that sometime later, the 'son-in-
law got it _conveyed to Bhagwant Si_ngh that he required Rs. 50,000 for financing 
his business which was not ac~eded to; (iv) that on Aµgust 9, 1980 i.e. ten 
months ~fter the marriage his da,ughter ,was found dead qf_ third Oegree burns 
from a kerosene fire in the bat~ rooI_n ar:id was admitted in the Ram Manohar 
Lohia Hospital by her father~in-law at 12.15 P.M.; (v) that the police did not 
get the statement of his daughter .recorded though s.he was able to speak; 
(vi)" that the police added section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to the charge 
on November 29, 1980 and only on May 15, 1981 a reference to section 306 
IPC was included in the F.LR.; and (vii) that the police failed to exan1ine 
material witnesses and recover material objects and proceeded in a leisurely 
manner. t 
A 
B 
c 
... 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
' c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ho 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(198313 s.c.11.. 
The Court admitted the writ petition and called for full details from the 
;Inspector General of Police about the .irivestigation of the case and the circums· 
lances leading to the non-filing of the report under section 173(2) of the Code · 
of Criminal Procedure. 
Disposing of the Writ Petition and directing the C.B.I. to complete the 
investigation within three months, the Court 
HELD: 1:1 Disappointing as it may seem to those who have desired the 
institution of criminal action on the basis that a crime has been committed, 
the material on record does not, however, justify an order to that effect by the 
Supren1e, Court. The investigation of the case now stands transferred to 
the C.B.I. at the instance of the petitioner. 
[123_ E-F] 
1 :2. It is not possible, in this case, nor indeed would it be right for the 
Court to do so, to enter into the question whether Gurinder Kaur committed 
suicide or was murdered. That ls a matter which is properly involved in the 
trial of a criminal charge by a court possessing jurisdiction·. 
[114 G~H] 
2:1. The poli.ce did not display the· promptitude and efficiency which 
the investigatic;>n of the case required. There is much that calls for comment~ 
Though the CD entry n1ade on August 9, 1980 indicates the visit ol' a sub-ins-
Pector to the place of occurrence and seizure of several things, the blanket with 
which the fire is said to have been put out has not been seized. ·On the next 
day when the experts from the Central Forensic

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.