STATE OF PUNJAB versus HARI KISHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 26-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
STATE OF PUNJAB 
A 
v. 
HARi KISHAN AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 1997 
· [G.T. NANA VA Tl AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial : 
Circumstantial evidence-Offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC-
Demand of dowry and ill treatment by husband and his two brothers-No eye C 
witness to the murder-Post m<;>rtem report shows death as a result of 
strangulation-Circumstances created a strong suspicion that her death was 
caused by someone residing in her house and in all probability by her 
husband as he had some motive to do so-No evidence led by the prosecution 
to controvert the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. to the D 
effect that they were not present in the house at the time of death-Held, even 
if the evidence regarding motive is believed, prosecution has failed to prove 
that it was the husband who had caused the death of his wife-Section 3 I 3 
Cr. P. C.-Statement made thereunder by the accused-Relevance of 
Unreliable witness-Confession of the guilt by the accused before a E 
witness-Material improvement made by him during the trial-Held, such 
evidence of the witness not reliable. 
Court witnesses-Testimony of-Two doctors examined by the Trial 
Court who had given treatment to the accused who became unconscious due 
to shock of the death of his wife when he returned back from the field-No F 
injury on his person-Thus, he had not become unconscious because of injury 
received by him while pulling down the roof as was tried to be made out by 
the prosecution-No cross examination by the prosecution whether the 
husband was unconscious or not and how he had become unconscious-
Held, husband's version that he was unconscious proved. 
G 
JR, deceased, was married to R-1. Soon after the marriage, respondents 
started pressing her either to get Rs. 20,000 or to secure an employment for 
R-1. On return to her father's place, she told this to her brother, PW-5. On 
3.12.1983, PW-3 who had brought about this marriage, when went to the 
village where the deceased was married to R-1 to meet his sister and brother- H 
299 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A in-law, PW-2, JR told PW-3 about the demand of dowry from R-1 and the ill 
treatment for not bringing that amount. In the same evening, PW-2 and PW-
3 went to the house of respondents, when they saw respondents pulling the 
deceased to one of the rooms of the house and on seeing PW-2 and PW-3, 
they let her free. PW-2 and PW-3 requested the respondents not to ill treat 
B the deceased JR. On the following day, i.e. on 4.12.1983, PW-4 had come to 
the residence of the respondents at. about 1 I .00 a.m. to purchase a bullock 
from them when he saw the respondents demolishing the roofofthe 'Kotha' 
of their house. The respondents' father told PW-4 that as the respondents 
were busy replacing the roof, the sale of bullock could not be finalised. Before, 
12.00 noon, PW-5 along with his sister came to the house of respondents to 
C meet their sister, and they saw JR lying on a cot inside one of the rooms and 
R-1 was on a cot in the adjoining room. R-2 and R-3 told PW-5 that JR has 
died because of the collapse of the roofofthe 'Kotha'. He then informed PW-
2, Sarpanch of the village, who after verifying the death JR went to the police 
station and the dead body was sent for post mortem. The post mortem report 
disclosed that she had died as a result of strangulation. Ultimately, R-1 was 
D charged under Section 302 and 201 lPC, whereas R-2 and R-3 were charged 
under Section 201 IPC. 
Trial Court convicted the respondents on the above charges. However, 
on appeal, High Court set aside the r.onviction and acquitted the respondents. 
E Hence this appeal by the State. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. Even if the evidence regarding motive is believed, the 
prosecution in this case has failed to establish that R-1 was present in the 
F house when the death of JR took place. According to evidence of PW-I (doctor), 
the death of deceased had taken place any time between 9.30 p.m. on 3rd and 
9.30 p.m. on 4th December, 1983. PW-1, who had performed the autopsy, had 
not ruled out the possibility of death having taken place in the morning of 4th 
December after 7.00 a.m. Therefore, it can not be said that the explanation of 
G R-1 that he had left for the field at about 7.00 a.m., his wife was alive then and 
he found her dead when he returned from the field at about I 1.00 a.m. is 
inconsistent with the medical evidence. Moreover,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.