G H GIRISH SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 668 · Decided: 23-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
GIRISH SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 1475 of 2009)
JULY 23, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.304B r/w s.34 – Dowry death –
Appellants-accused were father and son – Victim deceased was wife
of accused no.1 – Case against the appellants was that the deceased
was treated with cruelty on account of dowry demand – The victim-
deceased committed suicide by burning – Trial court held that
prosecution failed to prove case against both the appellants-accused
and ordered acquittal – Before High Court, appellants produced
letters to show that there was no cruelty, however, High Court held
that actual letters written by the deceased showing cruelty could
not be produced as they were misplaced due to shifting of the house
– High Court accepted the deposition given by prosecution witnesses
as reliable and trustworthy and convicted the appellants under
s.304B r/w s.34 – On appeal, held: The evidence of the mother of
the deceased did not reflect that deceased ever complained about
accused having harassed or beaten on account of dowry – Also,
there were serious contradictions in the evidence of the father of
the deceased – The two letters alleged to have been written by
deceased were not produced by the prosecution on the plea that
they were misplaced during shifting of the house – Even, if it is
accepted that those letters were misplaced, the letters admittedly
sent by the father of the deceased to his deceased daughter within
few days of the receipt of the letters did not disclose anything about
the harassment or cruelty or dowry demand – Even, in the letter
written by father of the deceased to his son, there was no mention
about any harassment or cruelty on account of dowry demand –
High Court, however, still took the view that dowry related
harassment was mentioned in the letters sent by the deceased which
were not even produced – This approach, particularly, in an appeal
against acquittal was clearly unacceptable – Case under s.304B,
thus, not made out – Conviction set aside.
   [2019] 9 S.C.R. 668
668
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
669
Penal Code, 1860: s.304B – Scope of trial under –
Appellants-accused were father and son – Victim deceased was wife
of accused no.1 – Allegation that accused-father wanted to fulfil
his lust with his daughter-in-law and as she did not agree he used
to torture her and give her beating – The victim-deceased committed
suicide by burning – High Court convicted the appellants under
s.304B r/w s.34, however found that offence under s.306 was not
made out – On appeal, held: The case of abetting suicide under
s.306 r/w s.34 was found unacceptable both by the trial court and
High Court and appellants were acquitted of said offence – A perusal
of the impugned judgment showed that accepting the version of the
prosecution witnesses, the High Court was persuaded to hold inter
alia that the second accused also harassed her by asking her to
provide liquor in the glass, and after taking liquor, in the state of
intoxication, he used to ask her to sleep with him and on her refusal,
subjected her to mental cruelty – High Court was in clear error in
taking into consideration the evidence relating to harassment by
the second accused on the basis that he, in the state of intoxication,
asked her to sleep with him, and on that basis, she was subjected to
mental cruelty – The said evidence is totally irrelevant and foreign
to the scope of a trial for the offence under s.304B – It did not
relate, at all, to the demand for dowry – High Court overstepped its
limits in dealing with an appeal against acquittal – The view taken
by the trial court was a possible one and did not merit interference
by the Appellate Court – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113B.
Appeal: Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference –
Discussed.
Criminal trial: Evidence – Chief examination and cross-
examination of witnesses – Held: Truth in a criminal trial is
discovered by not merely going through the cross-examination of
the witnesses – There must be an analysis of the chief-examination
of the witnesses in conjunction with the cross-examination and the
re-examination, if any – The effect of what other witnesses have
deposed must also enter into consideration of the matter – Evidence.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:  1.1  Section 304B is applicable if within 7 years of
the marriage, death of a woman (the wife) takes place.  The death
GIRISH SINGH

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