LexCHARAN SINGH @ CHARANJIT SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 511 [2023] 3 S.C.R. 511 CHARAN SINGH @ CHARANJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2012) APRIL 20, 2023 [ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 304 B, 498 A and 201 – Dowry Death – Presumption as to dowry death – Prosecution case that woman married two years ago, killed by her husband-appellant and in- laws for dowry – Death was unnatural and the victim was cremated without even informing her parents – Trial court convicted the appellant, brother-in-law and mother-in-law u/ss. 304 B, 498 A and 201 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 304B, rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively u/ ss. 498A and 201 – In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the brother-in-law and mother-in-law set aside whereas the conviction of the appellant upheld, however, the sentence u/s. 304B reduced to seven years – On appeal, held: In the evidence led by the prosecution, none of the witnesses stated about the cruelty or harassment to the victim by the appellant or any of his family members on account of demand of dowry soon before the death or otherwise – Rather harassment not been narrated by anyone – Only certain oral averments regarding demand of motorcycle and land which was also much prior to the incident – Evidence led by the prosecution did not fulfil the pre-requisites to invoke presumption u/s. 304B or s.113B of the Evidence Act – Even the ingredients of s. 498A not made out – Mere death of the victim being unnatural in the matrimonial home within seven years of marriage not sufficient to convict the accused u/ss. 304B and 498A – Cause of death as such not known – Thus, the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/ss. 304B, 498A and 201 not justified – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Evidence Act – s. 113 B. Baijnath v. State of M.P (2017) 1 SCC 101 : [2016] 11 SCR 764 – referred to. 511 A B C D E F G H 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. Case Law Reference [2016] 11 SCR 764 referred to Para 6 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.06.2010 of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in CRLA Nos. 387 of 2001 and 1667 of 1997. Shubhranshu Padhi, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Krishnam Mishra, Param Kumar Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. The appellant, who was husband of the deceased, has filed the present appeal challenging his conviction and sentence under sections 304B, 498A and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304B, 2 years under Section 498A and 2 years under Section 201 IPC. However, the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital had reduced the sentence of the appellant under Section 304B IPC from ten years to seven years. 2. The appellant and deceased Chhilo Kaur got married in the year 1993. The deceased was residing in her matrimonial home. On 24.6.1995 at 6.15 p.m. father of the deceased, Pratap Singh (PW-1) filed complaint with the P.S. Jaspur stating that his daughter Chhilo Kaur was married to the appellant about two years ago. In the marriage, he had given sufficient dowry as per his status. Two months after the marriage, his daughter came to her parental home and told the complainant (PW-1) that her in-laws are asking her to bring a motorcycle as the same was not given in dowry. The complainant pacified his daughter stating that at present he is not capable of giving motorcycle, however, whenever he is in a position to do so, he will certainly give and sent his daughter back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, whenever his daughter came to the parental home, she used to talk about the demand of motorcycle and subsequently after about one year of marriage, the demand for land was also made. Every time he used to pacify his daughter A B C D E F G H 513 and sent her back. On the previous day i.e. on 23.6.1995, one Jagir Singh of village Bhogpur Dam, where his daughter lived after marriage with the appellant came to complainant and told him that his daughter, Chhilo Kaur has been murdered by her in-laws. On getting the information, the complainant along with his wife came to village Bhogpur Dam on 24.6.1995 and were shocked to know that on 22.6.1995 in the morning at about 8.00 a.m., his daughter was beaten up a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.