LexSHAM LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... - - ·~ <. r I I \ I SHAM LAL A v. STATE OF HARYANA ETC. FEBRUARY 20, 1997 [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] B Indian Penal Code, 1860 : S. 498-A-Wife subjected to cruelty by husband and his relations--Wif e of appellant died of bums-Appellant and his two other relations prosecuted C u/ss. 302, 304-B and 498-A-Prosecution case was that it was a case of dowry death-Appellant stated that deceased was frustrated because of her not being able to give birth to a child and she committed suicid&-No eye-witness of incident-:Tn'al Court convicted the appellant and his father u/s. 302-High Court upheld appellant's conviction but acquitted his father-Held there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was either treated with cruelty or D harassed with the demand for dowry during the period between her having been taken to parental home and her tragic end-In absence of any such evidence it is not permissible to take recourse to legal presumption u/s. 113-B of Evidence Act-However, prosecution has succeeded in proving the offence u/s. 498-A-Conviction of appellant u/s. 302 set aside-He is convicted u/s. E 498-A and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years, Evidence Ac~ 1872-S. 113-B. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDiCTION: Criminal Appeal No. 559 of 1990 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.90 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crl.A. No. 606-DB of 1987. Ujagar Singh, Davender Verma and Satish Vig for the Appellant in Cr!. No. 559/98 and for Respondent Nos. 1-2 in Crl.A. No. 442/91. M.C. Dhingra for the Appellant in Crl.A. No. 442/91. Swaraj Kaushal, Sanjeev K. Pabbi for Prem Malhotra for the Respon- dent State of Haryana. The following Order of the Court was delivered : 309 F G H 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R. A Neelam Rani, wife of the appellant, died of burns on 17.6.1987. Her husband, the present appellant, and his father and grand-mother were arrayed as accused before the Sessions Court in connection with the death of Neelam Rani charging them with offences under Section 302, 304B and 498A of the IPC. The Sessions Court acquitted the grand-mother, who was B in her eighties, but convicted the appellant as well as his father of all offences and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the joint appeal by those convicted persons ac- quitted appellant's father but confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The High Court pointed out that in view of the said conviction it was unnecessary to maintain the conviction under the C other two offences. Appellant filed this appeal by special leave in challenge of the said conviction and sentence. There seems to be no dispute on the fact that Neelam Rani died of burns on 17.6.1987. The prosecution case in brief is that appellant was persecuting her with the demand for more dowry and at last set her ablaze D for not quenching his greed for dowry. On the other hand the stand of the appellant, when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was that by frustration, as she could not give birth to a child and as she could not adjust in the village life with the appellant, she committed suicide by burning herself. E The High Court counted some circumstances, in the absence of any eye-witness, and reached the conclusion that the circumstances have con- catenated themselves into a complete chain establishing that appellant had killed her by setting her ablaze after dousing her with kerosene. F On a scrutiny of the evidence we are of the view that the circumstan- ces are far too meagre for reaching the conclusion that appellant had set her on fire. When Neelam Rani's father-Bhagwan Dass (PW-3) on hearing about G the precarious condition of his daughter rushed to see her at the Civil Hospital, Kaithal, all that he could see was her charred body. When he saw the appellant standing nearby he asked him whether she was killed by him, to which appellant answered with folded hands that it was a mistake on. his part for that he should be forgiven. H The above circumstance was taken seriously by the High Court as an - - - SHAMLALv. STATEOFHARYANA 311 incriminating conduct of the appellant. Along with it High Court counted A the evidence of Zile Singh (PW-5). But that witness did not stick to the version assigned to him by the prosecution, and hence he was treated as hostile. He was to speak to the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.