LexSHER SINGH @ PARTAPA versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 29 SHER SINGH @ PARTAPA v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1592 of 2011) JANUARY 09, 2015 [VIKRt.MAJIT SEN AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3048 and 498A - Dowry death A B - Prosecution case that victim-wife committed suicide due to harassment for dowry by her husband and in-laws within one C year of marriage - Two months prior to her death she informed her brothers of cruelty connected with dowry demand - Conviction and sentence of husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law of the victim u/ss. 3048 and 498A by the trial court - High Court acquitting the brother-in-law and father-in- o law of the victim, however, upholding the conviction and sentence of the husband - On appeal, held: Once the concomitants of dowry death are established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the presumption of innocence is replaced by an E assumption of guilt of the accused, whereupon a heavy burden is cast on the shoulders of the accused to displace the deemed culpability beyond reasonable doubt, and not merely by preponderance of evidence Prosecution has not shown! presented and or proved even by preponderance of F probabilities that the deceased had been treated with cruelty emanating from or founded on dowry demands - Ingestion of aluminium phosphate may have been accidental - Due to the insufficiency or the unsatisfactory nature of the facts or circumstances shown by the prosecution, burden of proving his innocence not shifted to the appellant - Thus, order of G conviction and sentence of the appellant set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 1138 Evidence Act and Section 29 H 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A 3048 IPC were introduced into their respective statutes simultaneously and, therefore, it must ordinarily be assumed that Parliament intentionally used the word 'deemed' in Section 3048 to distinguish this provision from the others. In actuality, however, it is well nigh B impossible to give a sensible and legally acceptable meaning to these provisions, unless the word 'shown' is used as synonymous to 'prove' and the word 'presume' as freely interchangeable with the word 'deemed'. It is imperative to construe the word 'shown' in Section 3048 c IPC as to, in fact, connote 'prove'. The word 'soon' finds place in Section 3048; but preference would be to interpret its use not in terms of days or months or years, but as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but 0 should be the continuing cause for the death under Section 3048 or the suicide under Section 306 IPC. Once the presence of these concomitants are established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of E innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused, thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 14) [45-F, G; 46-D; F-H] F 1.2. The burden of proof weighs on the husband to prove his innocence by dislodging his deemed culpability, and that this has to be preceded only by the prosecution proving the presence of three factors, viz. (i) the death of a woman in abnormal circumstances (ii) G within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) that the death had a live link with cruelty connected with any demand of dowry. The other facet is that the husband has indeed a heavy burden cast on his shoulders in that his deemed culpability would have to be displaced and overturned beyond reasonable doubt. Section' 3048 does not H require the accused to give evidence against !limself but SHER SINGH @ PARTAPA v. STATE OF HARYANA 31 casts the onerous burden to dislodge his deemed guilt A beyond reasonable doubt. It would not be appropriate to lessen the husband's onus to that of preponderance of probability as that would annihilate the deemed guilt expressed in Section 3048, and such a curial interpretation would defeat and neutralise the intentions B and purposes of Parliament. All that needs to be said is that if the husband proves facts which portray, beyond reasonable doubt, that he could not have caused the death of his wife by burns or bodily injury or not involved in any manner in her death in abnormal circumstances, c he would not be culpable u/s. 3048.[
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.