GURJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 232 · Decided: 26-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
GURJIT SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1492-1493 of 2010)
NOVEMBER 26, 2019
[NAVIN SINHA AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.498-A  – Cruelty and harassment on
account of dowry demand  – Prosecution proved that the deceased
was harassed with a view to force her and her parents to meet
unlawful demand for money and such a harassment was on account
of failure by her and her parents to meet such a demand –Thus,
charge under Explanation (b) of s.498-A was proved.
Penal Code, 1860: ss.306, 498-A – Whether when the
prosecution established cruelty under Explanation (b) of s.498-A
and also established that the deceased committed suicide within
seven years of the marriage, the accused could also be held guilty
for the offence punishable under s.306 with the aid of s.113-A of
the  Evidence Act – Held: Merely because an accused is found
guilty of an offence punishable under s.498-A and the death
occurred within a period of seven years of the marriage, the accused
cannot be automatically held guilty for the offence punishable under
s.306 by employing the presumption under s.113-A of the Evidence
Act – Unless the prosecution establishes that some act or illegal
omission by the accused drove the deceased to commit the suicide,
the conviction under s.306 would not be tenable – Though the
prosecution is successful in proving the case under s.498-A, the
prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that any
act or omission of the accused instigated the deceased to commit
suicide – There was no evidence on record to show that immediately
prior to the deceased committing suicide there was a cruelty meted
out to the deceased by the accused due to which the deceased had
no other option than to commit the suicide – The evidence on record
further showed that the time gap between the last visit of the deceased
to her parents with regard to the illegal demand and the date of
commission of suicide was about two months – As such, there was
   [2019] 14 S.C.R. 232
232
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
233
nothing to show a proximate nexus between the commission of
suicide and the illegal demand made by the appellant – Further, the
cases wherein the conviction under s.306 had been held tenable by
this court, even though the charge was only under s.304B, it was
found that the charge in those cases specifically stated that the
deceased was driven to commit suicide on account of cruelty meted
out to the deceased – However, in the instant case, the charge did
not state that the deceased was driven to commit suicide on account
of the harassment meted out to the deceased – It did not mention
that the accused had abetted in commission of suicide by the
deceased – Therefore, conviction under s.498-A is maintained and
conviction under s.306 is set aside – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113-A.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The evidence of PW-10, father of the deceased
corroborated to an extent by PW-13 showed that the prosecution
was able to prove that the deceased was harassed with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property.  On the basis of said evidence, the
prosecution proved the charge under Explanation (b) of Section
498-A of the IPC. [Para 11] [240-E-F]
2. Merely because an accused is found guilty of an offence
punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and the death has
occurred within a period of seven years of the marriage, the
accused cannot be automatically held guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the IPC by employing the
presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. Unless
the prosecution establishes that some act or illegal omission by
the accused has driven the deceased to commit the suicide, the
conviction under Section 306 would not be tenable. [Para 27]
[249-E-F]
3. The prosecution failed to prove that the cruelty was of
such a nature which left no choice to the deceased than to commit
suicide.  There was no material on record to show that
immdediately prior to the deceased committing suicide, there
was a cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused due to
which the deceased had no other option than to commit suicide.
The evidence on record further showed that the time gap between
GURJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
the last visit of the deceased to her parents with regard to the
illegal demand and the date of commission 

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