LexBHIM SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF UTIARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 1043 SHIM SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 2146 of 2009) FEBRUARY 11, 2015 [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860- ss.3048, 498-A- Prosecution under rlw. ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Death caused by 90% bum injuries - Of a married women, in her matrimonial C house - Within 5 months of her marriage - Circumstantial evidence - Plea of the accused that the deceased committed suicide - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in D connection with demand of dowry - The courts therefore rightly raised presumption uls. 1138 of Evidence Act that the death was dowry death which the accused failed to rebut - There was no missing link in the chain of circumstances to entitle the accused to benefit of doubt - Even if it is assumed E ·that the deceased committed suicide, the presumption uls. 113-A for abetting the deceased to commit suicide is against the accused, which they failed to rebut - Hence, conviction upheld - Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 113A and 1138 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss. 3 and 4 - Dowry Death. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1. A conjoint reading of Section 1138 of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B of l.P.C. shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the G victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of "death occurring otherwise than in normal 1043 H 1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R. A circumstances". In the present case, the prosecution has proved by producing cogent evidence that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. Thus, it becomes obligatory for the Court to raise a B presumption that the death is a dowry death. [Para 12] (1055-G-H; 1056-A-C] Kaliyaperumal and Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 9 sec 157: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1 - relied on. C 2. Even if it is assumed that the deceased had committed suicide, then u/s. 113A of Evidence Act, onus is shifted on the accused to dislodge the presumption of having committed abetment of suicide by a married woman. Unlike as in Section 304-B where the court "shall D presume" dowry death, when. the prosecution has established the ingredients, under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, discretion has been conferred upon the Court wherein it has been provided that the Court may presume abetment of suicide. Therefore the onus lies on E the accused to rebut the presumption, and in case of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act relatable to Section 3048 of IPC, the onus to prove shifts exclusively and heavily on the accused. [Para 13] (1056-D-F] Bansi/al vs. State of Haryana (2011) 11 SCC 359: 2011 F (1) SCR 724; Hemchand vs. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 120 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 295; Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh 1990 Cri. LJ 562 (SC) - relied on. 3. The circumstances from which the conclusion of G guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely "may be" fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the ~H accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of BHIM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1045 conclusive nature and tendency. They should exclude A every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have B been done by the accused. Whenever there is a break in the chain of circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. But in assessing the evidence, imaginary possibilities have no prace. The Court considers ordinary human probabilities. [Paras 15 and 16] c [1058-C, E-H; 1059-A] Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Haryana (2002) 8 SCC 18: 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 337; Sharad Birdhichand Sardar vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: 1985 (1) SCR 88 - relied on. D 4. When facts are clear, it is immaterial whether motive was proved. Absence of motive does not break the link in the chai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.