VIJAY PAL SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTIARAKHAND

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 16-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 12 S.C.R. 517 
VIJAY PAL SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2011) 
DECEMBER 16, 2014 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3048134, 498A and 201 - Dowry 
death - Death of victim-wife within four months of marriage -
C 
Allegations by victim's father that the appellants-husband, his 
father, his brother and brother-in-law committed murder of his 
daughter and tried to destroy the dead body by burning -
Allegation of also of continues dowry demand and threat of 
dire consequences - Acquittal by trial court, however, order D 
of conviction and sentence u/ss. 3048134, 498A and 201 
passed by the High Court - On appeal, held: There has been 
a palpable misreading of evidence by the trial court, thus, the 
conclusions drawn by the trial court is perverse - Having 
regard to the circumstances though this case could have been 
E 
dealt with uls. 302, at this distance of time and in view of the 
lack of evidence on the chain of circumstances, it would not 
be proper for this Court to proceed uls. 302 for enhancement 
of punishment -Presumption can safely be drawn that death 
has been caused by the husband or his relatives, who caused 
F 
the cruelty or harassment as all the ingredients uls. 3048 have 
been proved beyond doubt particularly since there is no direct 
evidence on the part of the appellants to rebut the same -
Conviction and sentence as against husband and father-in-
/aw ulss. 3048134, 498A and 201 upheld -
However, 
conviction and sentence of father-in-law and husband set G 
aside since offence not proved against them - Further, not a 
fit case for following the procedure uls. 235 Cr.P.C by this 
Court or for remand in that regard to the High CoLJrt.· 
517 
H 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Though in the instant case the accused 
were charged by the Sessions Court under Section 302 
IPC, it is seen that the trial court did not make any serious 
8 attempt to make an inquiry in that regard. If there is 
evidence available on homicide in a case of dowry death, 
it is the duty of the investigating officer to investigate the 
case under Section 302 IPC and the prosecution to 
proceed in that regard and the court to approach the 
case in that perspective. Merely because the victim is a 
C married woman suffering an unnatural death within seven 
years of marriage and there is evidence .that she was 
subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of 
demand for. dowry, the prosecution and the court cannot 
close its eyes on the culpable homicide and refrain from 
D punishing its author, if there is evidence in that regard, 
direct or circumstantial. On the facts of the instant 'case, 
there has been a palpable misreading of evidence by the 
trial court. The conclusions drawn by the trial court is 
apparently against the weight of evidence and thus 
E perverse, and it is so perverse that no reasonable man 
could reach conclusions. Further, the prosecution did not· 
make any attempt to explain the ante-mortem injuries 
which conclusively point to the cause of death as 
asphyxia caused by strangulation. Yet, no serious attempt 
F was done to connect the murder to its author(s). [Para 
21,22, 33] [533-B-E; 539-C-E] 
1.2. As regards the identification of the body, PWs-2 
and 3 who were not from the village of the deceased, 
G identified the face as that of a woman and PW-1-father 
has recognized her to be his daughter. At the time of 
cremation, it has come in evidence that others also 
recognized the deceased as daughter of PW-1 and wife 
of second appeallant. [Para 32] [538-D, F] 
H 
VIJAY PAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 
519 
1.3. The incident being of 1991, the prosecution 
A. 
having not chosen to link all the circumstances in a chain 
with no missing links to reach the irresistible and 
conclusive finding on involvement of the accused, the 
High Court would have thought it more prudent to 
, 
convict the accused only· under Section 3048 IPC. No 
B 
doubt, in such a case, the High Court should not have 
entered a categoric finding on murder since once the 
court enters such a finding, the punishment can only be 
under Section 302 IPC. Having regard to the 
circumstances though this case could have been dealt c 
with under Section 302 IPC at this distance of time and 
in view of the lack of evidence on the chain of 
circumstances, it would not be proper for this Co_urt to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.