LexJAGJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 75 JAGJIT SINGH A '· V. STATE OF PUNJAB Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2009 MARCH 6, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.3048 - Dowry death - Deceased ~ allegedly tortured by husband in connection with demand of dowry - Dead body of deceased found hanging from ceiling c fan - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court - Appeal against conviction - Held: High Court analysed evidence of witnesses keeping in view parameters relating to scope of interference with judgment of acquittal - No infirmity in order of High Court so as to warrant interference - Conviction D upheld - Crime against women. Prosecution case was that deceased was ill treated by her husband and his parents, in connection with demand of dowry. On fateful day, father of deceased was E informed that his daughter was killed by accused by strangulation. He went to the house of accused where dead body of deceased was found hanging from the ceiling fan. Case was registered against appellant husband and his parents. The trial court found that evidence was insufficient to fasten the guilt on the F accused. On appeal, High Court held that the co-accused, who were parents of appellant were staying separately and, therefore, there was doubt about their participation in the commission of the offence, but found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 304-B-IPC and G • sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 75 H 1 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 4 S.C.R A HELD: 1. The deceased breathed her last within about one year and three months from the date of marriage while living in the house of her in-laws. She was not suffering from any ailment prior to marriage and even after the marriage she continued to be hale and hearty. The B father of the deceased stated that the deceased came to his house on 17.3.1995. She informed him that the accused persons were torturing her and were demanding Rupees one lac for purchasing a new house. To the similar effect was the evidence of the brother of the deceased. The agreement for purchase of house by father-in-law ,. c revealed that it was executed on 8.2.1995 and the sale deed was to be executed on 8.5.1995. The High Court noted that this document amply established that the family required money for purchase of plot. The High Court D further noted that there was no material brought on record to show that the agreement was performed by the accused persons. The High Court found that there was presumptuous conclusion of the trial Court that there was no link of the demand for dowry with the said agreement. E The High Court also noted that the trial Court erroneously concluded that the accused persons were rich persons and, therefore, there was no need for asking any dowry. [Para 6) [80-8-F] Appasahed and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (9) F sec 721- relied on. 2. The High Court analysed the evidence of the witnesses clearly keeping in view the parameters relating to the scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal. The analysis does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant G interference. Since the minimum sentence was awarded there is no scope to interfere in this appeal. [Para 8) [82-D] • Case Law Reference 2001 (9) sec 121 relied on Para 7 H JAGJIT SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB 77 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A f. No. 444 of 2009 From the Judgement and Order dated 01.02.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 654-DBA of 1997. B Vikram Choudhary, Nikhil Jain, D. Mahesh Babu, for the Appellant. Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra, H.S. Sandhu, for ,, the Respondent. c The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division D Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the appeal filed by the State questioning the judgment of acquittal recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The appellant and two others faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 E (in short the '!PC'). 3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: One Avtar Singh (Complainant) made a statement Ex P.A. before the police on 18.3.1995 that his
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.