DEVENDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 29-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
_ 
A 
DEVENDER SINGH 
v. 
ST ATE OF HARY ANA 
B 
NOVEMBER 29, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA ANDMARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
ss. 306 and 498-A-Married woman died of burn injuries-Her son and 
father-in-law also received burn injuries, the latter while saving her-Cause 
of suicide alleged to be demand by her husband of money for raising some 
construction-High Court holding that purported demand did not strictly 
.. 
fall within the definition of dowry but convicting the husband-Held, as the 
D ,fttrported demand made by the husband had no direct nexus or immediate 
cause for commission of suicide by the ·wife, it would not amount to abetment 
of commission of such suicide-Husband being entitled to benefit of doubt, 
acquitted. 
E 
A married woman died of burn injuries within seven years of her 
marriage. In the incident her two years old son also received burn injuries, 
as also her father-in-law who tried to save her and the child. Both of them 
also died subsequently. Her husband and brother-in-law were prosecuted on 
the basis of some letters containing demand of money to raise some 
construction, which was said to have embarrassed the victim and was a cause 
F to commit the suicide. The tria·I court acquitted the brother-in-law but 
convicted the husband. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. 
Allowing the appeal of the husband, the Court 
HELD: J.1. The High Court is not correct. As the purported demand 
G made by the husband had no direct nexus or immediate cause for commission 
of suicide by his wife, the same would not amount to abetment of commission 
of such suicide. The very fact that the High Court has proceeded on the basis 
that the demand made by the husband did not amount to dowry negates the 
prosecution case. (842-E-F) 
H 
840 
' 
... 
DEVENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [SINHA, J.] 
841 
1.2.The prosecution should have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt A 
It is accepted at the Bar that when the incident took place, the appellant was 
not in his house. He was prosecuted together with his brother. The trial Judge 
acquitted his brother. This fact also should have been taken into consideration 
by the High Court. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case 
where the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned B 
judgment of the High Court and the judgment.and order of the trial court are 
set aside. (842-G-H; 843-A-B) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 277/ 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated l -6-1999 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh _in Cr!. A. No. 604-SB/l 987. 
Sanjay Sharawat for the Appellant. 
Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh and T.V. George for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
D 
S.B. SINHA, J. The appellant before us is the husband of the deceased 
Sumitra. They were married on 7.2.1984. A child was born to them in 1985. The E 
incident occurred on l l .3. l 987 at about l l .00 a.m. Indisputably, the two-year 
old child of the appellant was also injured in that incident. It has also not been 
disputed that the father of the appellant received bum injuries when he tried 
to save the lady and the child. Whereas the deceased Sumitra died on the 
spot, her son and father-in-law died subsequently. 
Three witnesses, namely, both the parents and the brother of the 
deceased were examined to prove the purported demand of dowry and 
harassment allegedly meted out to the deceased by the appellant. The entire 
prosecution case is based on some letters which were said to have been 
F 
. written by the deceased and her husband in the years 1984-85. The learned G 
Trial Judge as also the High Court based their entire judgments of conviction 
and sentence on the basis of said letters and the conduct of the appellant 
and other family members. 
From a perusal of the judgment of the High Court it appears that the 
appellant is said to have demanded some money from his in-laws to raise H 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A some construction. The High Court opined that the said demand does not 
strictly come within the purview of the definition of dowry. But despite the 
same, it proceeded to hold that such demands spoil the atmosphere of the 
matrimonial home; the wife was embarrassed and as a result of such 
embarrassment committed suicide. As regards the fact that the appellant's 
B father had tried to save ·the lady and the child., who ultimately 

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