LexSUKHWINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 339 SUKHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1023 of 2008) NOVEMBER 12, 2013 [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B c s.304-8 - Dowry death - Conviction of husband by High Court - Held: The evidence on record discloses that after marriage, attitude of accused was hostile towards deceased - Five days prior to incident deceased had described to her father about the demands raised by accused and that there 0 was danger to her life - Thus, harassment of dowry was soon before the death - Fwther, victim died of poisoning within 7 years of marriage - Therefore, presumptions uls 304-8 /PC ands. 113-8 of Evidence Act are attracted - Conviction upheld - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.113-8. E INVEST/GA TION: Discrepancies in timing and date of handing over of case property - Overwriting in inquest report - Held: Cases in which substratum of prosecution case is strong and substantiated F by reliable evidence, lapses in investigation should not persuade the court to reject the prosecution case and unnecessary weightage should not be given to minor errors or lapses - In the instant case, the doctor clearly deposed about the date of handing over the case property to police after G post-mortem - There seems to be mistake in giving dates -- Simi la rly, the overwriting in the inquest report is inconsequential -- It could be a mere inadvertent lapse - Further, sending the special report to magistrate the following 339 H 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A day has no adverse impact on prosecution case - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.57. The daughter of PW 2 was married to the appellant in May·, 1989. On 30.6.1991, she died in the matrimonial 8 home. The prosecution case, as revealed from the statement of PW 2, was that on 25-6-1991 when he went, along with PW-3, to the house of the appellant to meet her daughter, she was in tears and told that the appellant and the other accused were demanding a scooter and a refrigerator and that her life was in danger. On 1.7.1991, C he was informed that his daughter had died on 30/06/ 1991. A case for offence punishable u/s 3048 IPC was registered against the appellant (accused no. 4), his father, mother and brother (accused nos. 1 to 3 respectively). The trial court acquitted all the accused. D The High Court convicted the appellant u/s 3048, IPC and sentenced him to 7 years RI. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1.1 Admittedly, the deceased died within seven years of marriage, therefore, presumptions u/s 304· B, IPC and s.1138 of the Evidence Act are attracted to the case. It is for the appellant to rebut it, which, the he has failed to do. [para 8] [345-H; 346-A] F 1.2 It is not correct to say that from the date of marriage till the date of incident there was no harassment to the deceased. PW-2 has given the details of articles given to the appellant and his family as dowry and stated that after marriage the attitude of the accused was hostile G towards the deceased. Besides, the demand was made on 25.06.1991 and the deceased died on 30.06.1991. Thus, the harassment for dowry was soon before the death of the deceased, as required by s. 304-8, IPC and s.113·8 of the Evidence Act. Further, from the medical H SUKHWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 341 evidence it is clear that the victim died of poisoning. [para A 9-10] (346-G; 347-A-B, DJ 1.3 As regards overwriting and discrepancies in timing and date of handing over the case property to police after post-mortem, PW-1, the doctor who did the 8 post-mortem of the deceased, stated that post-mortem was conducted on 01/07/1991. There is no reason to disbelieve him. He stated that he handed over the case property to PW-7 on 1.7.1991. However, PW-7, in his affidavit has stated that post-mortem was conducted on C 2.7.1991 and he handed over the case property to PW-4 on 2. 7 .1991. The evidence does not indicate any tampering with the case property. There appears to be mistake in giving the dates. Similarly, the overwriting in the inquest report is inconsequential. It could be a mere inadvertent lapse. [para 11] [347-D-E, H; 348-A, E] D 1.4 Where substratum of the prosecution case is strong and substantiated. by reliable evidence, lapses in investigation should not persuade the court to reject the prosecution case and unnecessary weightage should E not be given to minor errors or lapses
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.