LexSULTAN SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2014) 10 S.C.R. 742 SULTAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1366 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: ss.304-8 and 498-A - Dowry death - Bride died of burn injuries in matrimonial home within 5 years of marriage - Evidence of dowry demand continuing soon before death - Conviction by courts below - There is no ground to interfere 0 with the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that , it was not a case of accidental death but a death taking place in circumstances other than normal - Thus, the presumption uls 1138 of the Evidence Act has been rightly invoked and the offence against the appellant has been proved - There E is no tangible circumstance to rebut the presumption. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: s. 113-8 - Dowry death - Presumption - Under s. 113- 8, presumption is attracted only in case of suicidal or F homicidal death and not in case of an accidental death - In the instant case, there are no probabilities to support the defence plea of accident. EVIDENCE: G Expert opinion - Opinion of post-mortem doctor - The opinion of expert witness on technical aspects has relevance but the opinion has to be based upon specialized knowledge and the data on which it is based has to be found acceptable by the court. H 742 SULTAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 743 Dismissing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1. The brother and father of the deceased have made categorical allegation of demand of dowry which confirmed almost upto the date of death. Even though version of PW 4, brother of the deceased, and PW 8 5, father of the deceased, may be exaggerated to the extent of saying that they saw the accused and his mother causing burn injuries, there is no reason to disbelieve their version with regard to demand of dowry. [para 11) [751-E] 2.1. The presumption u/s 1138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is attracted only in case of suicidal or homicidal death and not in case of an accidental dei;lth. In the instant case, there is no reason to hold that the burn c injuries were by accident. [para 9 and 11) [751-C, F] D 2.2. Though there is the statement of PW 3, the doctor who conducted the post mortem that there was more probability of death being caused by accidental fire as there was no smell of kerosene oil from the body of E the deceased and that the fire had started from the lower parts of the body towards upper parts, such statement of an expert witness without being based on any specialized knowledge cannot be accepted. The opinion of expert witness on technical aspects has relevance but the opinion has to be based upon specialized knowledge and the data on which it is based has to be found acceptable by the court. [para 13) [752-H; 753-A-B] Madan Gopa/ Kakkad versus Naval Dubey. 1992 (2) SCR 921 = 1992 (3) sec 204 - relied on. 2.3. Having regard to the entirety of material, there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that it was not a case of accidental death but a death taking place in F G H 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A circumstances other than normal. Thus, the presumption uls 1138 of the Evidence Act has been rightly invoked and the offence against the appellant has been proved. There is no tangible circumstance to rebut the B c D presumption. [para 15) [761-C-D] Pa wan Kumar vs. State of Haryana 1998 (1) SCR 7 46 = 1998 (3) SCC 309, Hira Lal vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi. 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734 = 2003 (8) sec 80 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 1992 (2) SCR 921 relied on 998 (1) SCR 746 relied on 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734 relied on Para 13 Para 14 Para 14 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1366 of 2010. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 204-SB of 1996 of the High Court of E Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. D.P. Singh, Salil Bhattacharya, Sanjay Jain for the Appellant. Manjit Singh, AAG., Nupur Choudhary, Vivekta Singh, F Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been G preferred against the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short the "IPC"). Under Section 304-B IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years while under Section 498A, IPC he has been sentenc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.