LexBIMLA DEVI AND ANR. versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2009] 7 S.C.R. 486 SIMLA DEVI AND ANR. v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2002 MAY 5, 2009 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) ., Ranbir Penal Code: .. Sections 306 and 498-A - Conviction by the Trial Court - Upheld by the High Court but sentence reduced - Correctness of - Held: In the examination under s.313 no question was asked relating to demand of dowry and abetment of suicide - Hence conviction set aside. Sangaraboina Sreenu v. State of A.P 1997 (5) SCC 348; Lokendra Singh v. State of M.P. 1999 SCC (Criminal) 371; Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka 2001 (2) SCC 577 and Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 Supp (1) SCC 173 - referred to. CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2002 From the Judgement and Order dated 25.08.2000 of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in Criminal First Appeal No. 7 of 1992 K.T.S. Tulsi, Sushi! Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, for the Appellant. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court upholding t~e conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under 486 • ·• "' .. SIMLA DEVI AND ANR V. STATE OF JAMMU 487 AND KASHMIR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J] ,. Sections 306 and 498-A of the Ranbir Penal Code (in short the A 'RPC') while reducing the sentence so far as the offence relatable to Section 306 is concerned. The custodial sentence and fine of Rs.500/- was confirmed. Learned Sessions Judge, Kathua had found the appellant guilty as afore-noted and had sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for 71h years and 2 years B respectively and-fine with default stipulation. Appellant No.1 is the mother of appellant No.2. The present appellant and one r Jatinder Kumar, brother of appellant No.2 faced trial for alleged commission of offence referred to above. 2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: c On 29.5.1990 Suman Lata (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was brought to district Hospital Kathua. She had sustained burn injuries. Police came to know about this occurrence. An Assistant Sub-Inspector Amar Chand Padha D reached there. Statement of the deceased was recorded. On " the basis of the statement so given First Information Report came to be lodged. This was under Section 498-A of RPC. The victim was taken to a Government Hospital at Jammu. Another statement of the victim came to be recorded. This was recorded at Jammu on 29.5.1990. This was also recorded by a Police E Officer. Later, on sixth day, i.e. 3.6.1990 another statement came to be recorded. This statement was recorded by Gulam Naib Tehsildar Digiana. The victim died on 6.6.1990. This is thus a .. case where one statement of the deceased came to be recorded on 29.5.1990. This was recorded by a police officer F in the District Hospital, Kathua. Another statement came to be recorded after she was admitted in the SMGS Hospital. This statement was again recorded on 29_5.1990. This was again by a police officer. Another statement came to be recorded by Gulam Nabi, Executive Magistrate on 3.6.1990. The trial Court G on the basis of the first statement which was recorded in the ._ District Hospital, Kathua and after referring to oral as also -<I documentary evidence convicted two of the accused persons. ·-There were in fact several statements recorded of the H 488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A deceased. They gave entirely different scenario. The trial Court noticed that at the stage of framing.charge the question was as to which of the different versions was to be preferred. The Court was required to appreciate whether it was a case of murder or abetment to suicide. The trial Court by order dated 1.11.1998 B framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 RPC. As the trial Court itself noted in its judgment, in case the earlier statement of the deceased was believed the other two statements cannot be ignored because their evidentiary value " could be appreciated and, therefore, the proper charge was c under Section 302 read with Section 34 RPC. Sixteen witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. As the accused pleaded innocence they also examined 11 witnesses. The trial Court proceeded on the premises that from the beginning two versions of the deceased D were there; one
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.