LexSOHAN LAL @ SOHAN SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
SOHAN LAL @ SOHAN SINGH AND ORS.
.·.:.._:_..
v.
ST A TE OF PU_NJAB
OCTOBER 14, 2003
B
{K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 109.
C
Murder-Married woman died due to extensive burn injuries within
seven years of marriage-Husband charge-sheeted for dowry death under
S. 304-B but not under S. 302 or for abetment of murder under S. 109--Trial
court convicted husband under S.302 rlw S. 109-High Court upheld
conviction-Correctness of-Held: Failure to frame a charge under S. 109
had certa~nly prejudiced the accused-Conviction set aside.
D
Evidence Act, 1872 :
Section 32-Dying declaration-Conviction based upon-Married
woman died of extensive burn injuries within seven years of marriage~
E Deceased made dying declaration before Executive Magistrate-·Trial .
court relying on the dying declarations convicted the accused-Correctness
of-Held: There is no circumstance to show that the Executive Magistrate
had any motive to make out a false case against the accused-Hence, it
is safe to convict the accused on the basis of the dying declaration.
F
According to the prosecution, a married woman died d11le to
extensive burn injuries within seven years of marriage. It was alleged
that the deceased was set on fire by her husband-appellant No. 1,
mother-in-law-appellant No. 2 and sister-in-law-appellant no. 3 in
connivance with one another. The deceased before her death had made
G a dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate, PW-6. The
deceased was allegedly being harassed by the appellants-accused to
extract dowry from her parents.
Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were charge-sheeted under Section 302
H of the Penal Code, 1860. However, appellant No. 1 was charge-sheeted
676
t=
I;·-.-. ...
SOHAN LAL@ SOHAN SINGH v. ST ATE
677
for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC but not under Section 302 A
IPC or for abetment of murder under Section 109 IPC. The trial court
convicted appellants Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 302 IPC and appellant
No. 1 under section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and they were
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence the appeal.
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that failure to frame
a charge under Section 109 IPC against appellant No. 1 had prejudiced
him in the trial court; the District Magistrate had acted with great
haste in deputing PW-6 to record the dying declaration; and that it was
unsafe to convict the accused on such a dying declaration.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court
B
c
HELD : 1. Failure to frame a charge with regard to the substantive
offence under Section 109 of the Penal Code has certainly prejudiced the
accused in the trial. The accused-appellant No. 1 was called upon to face D
trial only for the charge under Section 304-B IPC. Neither a charge
under Section 302 IPC, nor under Section 109 IPC was levelled against
him in the Charge Sheet. In the absence ofa charge being framed against
appellant No. 1 under Section 302 or 109 IPC, it would certainly cause
prejudice to him, if he were convicted under either of these offences at E
the end of the trial. It was not permissible for the trial court to convict the
appellant No. 1 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109
IPC. His conviction under Section 302 read with section 109 IPC is,
therefore, illegal and is liable to be set aside. The High Court erre1' in
upholding the conviction of appellant No.I under Section 302 read with F
Section 109 IPC and dismissing his appeal. [681-G-H, 682-A-B]
Joseph Kurian Philip Jose v. State of Kera/a, (1994) 6 SCC 535 and
Wakil Yadav v. State of Bihar, [2000) 10 SCC 500, relied on.
2. There is no circumstance brought on record to suspect the G
bonafides of the Executive Magistrate, PW-6; nothing has been elicited
to show that he was interested in fabricating a case against the accused
or that he had any motive to make out a false case against the accused.
Hence, it is not possible to accept the contention of appellant Nos. 2 and
3 that it is unsafe to convict them on the dying declaration. \689-A-B\ H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002] 6 SCC 710, followed.
B
c
D
Paparainbaka Rosamma v. State of A.P., (1999] 7 SCC 695, Kofi
Chunilal Savji v. State of Gujarat, (1999] 9 SCC 562 and Ravi Chander
v. State of Punjab, (1998] 9 SCC303, 'relied on.
3. As to how much time the District Magistrate should take in
respondExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.