LexHARJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. HARJIT SINGH A v. STA TE OF PUNJAB DECEMBER 8, 2005 (S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B Penal Code, I 860: Section 304-B-Death of wife-Caused by poisoning-A/legation of demand of dowry and cruelty-Prosecution of husband, mother-in-law and C brother-in-law-Acquittal of brother-in-law and conviction of the rest of the accused by trial Court-Further acquittal of mother-in-law on the ground that the deceased might have committed suicide being unable to tolerate the ins~lt meted out to her father, when he had come 'to visit her-On appeal, held: Jn the facts of the case prosecution failed to prove that the deceased D was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death-Hence presumption under Section 304-B /PC or under Section 113-B of Evidence Act cannot be invoked-Appellant acquitted-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 113-B. Section 304-B and 306-Prosecution uls. 304 B-Failure to frame E charge uls. 306-Acquittal uls. 304 B-Permissibility to convict uls. 306- Held: An accused is not liable to be convicted wherever, the prosecution fails to establish case uls. 304-B-ln the present case, since case of suicide by the deceased not made out, accused cannot be convicted uls. 306-The ingredients of Section 304-B and Section 306 are different-Code of Criminal Procedure, F 197 3-Section 215. Practice and Procedure-Plea for conviction uls. 306 /PC where case uls. 304-B !PC not established-Plea raised for the first time before Supreme Court-Permissibility of-Held: Such plea cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court, unless the materials on record G establish the said charge. Appellant-accused along with his mother and brother, was prosecuted for having killed his wife by poisoning. It was alleged that after the marriage 629 H 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A of the younger brother of the appellant, the accused started taunting and harassing the deceased for having brought less dowry. In order to fulfill the demand, PW.2-father of the deceased had paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- on two occasions. The deceased had informed her brother that PW-2 should take her away to his place as she was apprehending that the accused B would kill her at the time of her delivery as she was in family way. She was taken by PW-2 to his place, where she delivered her baby. However, the baby died. Thereafter, she went back to her matrimonial house. One day prior to the occurrence. PW-2 had gone to visit the deceased and found her hale and hearty. Next day, on receiving the message of death of the deceased, PW-2 went to her house and there he made complaint to the police. Chemical C Examiner in his report opined that poison was found ht the viscera of the deceased. Brother of the deceased was not examined. PW-2 in his statement regarding nature and purpose of demand of the amount above mentioned had contradicted his earlier statement before D.O.R.G. Mother of the deceased- PW-3 categorically admitted that she had no grievance against her son-in- law, not did sheever make any complaint. Trial Court convicted the appellant D and his mother u/s.304-8 IPC. Brother of the appellant was acquitted. In appeal, High Court acquitted the mother of the appellant finding that appellant's mother did not accept any dowry; and that the deceased might have consumed poison to finish herself on the ground that when PW-2 had come to see her, one day prior to the occurrence, he might have been ·insulted or E felt hurt that his daughter was not happy. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A legal fiction has been created in Section 304-B IPC to the effect that in the event it is established that soon before the death, the F deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relative, for or in connection with any demand of dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (636-DJ 1.2. From a conjoint reading of Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B G of the Evidence Act, it will be apparent that a presumption arising thereunder will operate if the prosecution is able to establish the circumstances as set out in Section 304-B IPC. The ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are: (1) that the death of the woman caused by ~my burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which is not normal; (2)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.