JAGJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 26-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
405
JAGJIT SINGH
v.
 STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No.408 of 2017)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI, NAVIN SINHA  AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art.136 – Contours of jurisdiction
under – Appellant’s wife died along with her child by way of
drowning in a river within seven years of her marriage – Trial Court
convicted the appellant u/s.304-B of IPC – Conviction affirmed by
the High Court, however, it reduced the sentence from 8 years
rigorous imprisonment to a period of 7 years – Appellant contended
that there was neither cruelty nor any demand for dowry – On
appeal, held: In various Supreme Court judgments, it has been held
that in an appeal u/Art.136, the Court will not reassess the evidence
at large, particularly, when it has been concurrently accepted by
the High Court and the Courts below – For interference of Supreme
Court something more must be shown such as, violation of principles
of natural justice in the trial, error of law or procedure, by errors
of record or misreading of evidence, non-consideration of glaring
inconsistencies in the evidence which demolish the prosecution case
or where the conclusion of the High Court is manifestly perverse
and unsupportable and the like – In the instant case, there is material
in the form of testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 regarding dowry
harassment – On 16.02.2001, PW-1 stated that appellant’s wife
contacted him from a PCO and informed him that all the accused,
including appellant were maltreating her – On the same date, PW-3
stated that appellant’s wife had visited her and informed that
appellant had beaten her – Furthermore, PW-5 deposed that he
saw appellant’s wife on 16.02.2001 at the PCO, though he could
not hear her but saw her weeping – Doctor who conducted post
mortem opined that death occurred on 16.02.2001/17.02.2001 –
Therefore, the law enjoins u/s.113-B of the Evidence Act drawing
of the presumption that the accused has committed dowry death –
The view taken by trial Court and affirmed by the High Court on
basis of the material available on record cannot be said to be
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 405
405
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
manifestly perverse – Thus, interference by the Supreme Court would
not be justified – Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Evidence Act, 1872
– s.113-B.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  Whether there is material within the meaning of
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act for the Court to have come to
the conclusion that soon before the death, the deceased was
treated with cruelty or harassed for or in connection with
demand for dowry. In this regard here is a material in the form of
testimony of PW1 and PW3. The marriage between the accused-
appellant and the deceased took place on 24.1.1998 and it
survived only for a little over three (3) years. It is on 16.2.2001
that the deceased goes to the house of PW3, her elder sister,
spent 5 to 7 minutes, according to the said witness, complained
of cruelty or harassment by the accused and her own daughter
was with her. On the same day, she goes to the PCO, phones her
father PW1 and tells him about the harassment. PW4 the person
working at the PCO has also stated that she was weeping, when
she made a call. PW1 has spoken about the contents of the
telephonic conversation namely, all the accused were
maltreating and taunting her and that she was very much upset
and the accused had thrown her out from their house with the
daughter and that she will not be allowed to come back without a
Maruti car or Rupees two lakhs. If he is to be believed (In fact,
two courts have), this would amount to cruelty/harassment in
connection with demand for dowry. Therefore, the law enjoins
under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act drawing of the
presumption that the accused has committed the dowry death.
[Para 26] [424-E-H; 425-A-B]
2.   Undoubtedly, the presumption is rebuttable at the hands
of the accused by adducing evidence and discharging the reverse
burden. Whether any such evidence in discharge with reverse
burden has been successfully adduced and whether it has been
considered, is the next question. The judgment of the trial Court
would show that there is indeed a reference to the contents of
the deposition of PW5, PW6 and PW8. [Para 27] [425-B-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
407
3.   Power under Article 136 seemingly, transcends all
limitations in regard to matters save where it is expressly
excluded. However, by way of self imposed intrusions into such
power, as also 

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