Explore the detailed legal analysis conducted by the court in a recent judgment convicting under Section 304-B IPC. The judgment delves into the evidence presented, reevaluation of facts, and interpretation of the law. This summary sheds light on how the court carefully examined the case, highlighting the importance of legal scrutiny in criminal proceedings.
Facts
- Appellants are aggrieved by their conviction and sentence.
- The appeal is against the judgment dated 18.01.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh in CRA-S-307-SB of 2002.
- The period of imprisonment for Raj Rani alone was reduced to 7 years.
- The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B of the IPC.
- The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 8 years imposed on both appellants was modified.
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC: A Critical Analysis
Arguments
- The incident leading to the death of Manju occurred on 02.03.1999, two years after her marriage in 1997.
- The cause of Manju’s death was consumption of insecticide, confirmed by expert witnesses.
- The circumstances fulfill the criteria under Section 304-B IPC regarding an unnatural death of a woman within 7 years of marriage.
- The appellants were charged with the offence under Section 304-B IPC, requiring proof of cruelty or harassment towards the deceased in connection with dowry demands.
Also Read: Validity of Debt and Enforcement of Section 138 NI Act
Analysis
- The trial court and High Court reevaluated the evidence thoroughly before convicting appellant No.1 (Kuljit Singh).
- The parents of the deceased testified to the demands for dowry made by the appellants, which were unfulfilled.
- The cause of death was determined to be organo phosphorous poisoning.
- Appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) denied any involvement in her daughter-in-law’s death, but evidence suggests otherwise.
- Witnesses confirmed the presence of appellant No.1 (Kuljit Singh) during the incidents, but not of appellant No.2 (Raj Rani).
- The unnatural death and dowry demands were key points in the case against the appellants.
- Trial court made sweeping statements about cruelty inflicted by husband and in-laws without specifying roles.
- No specific evidence of demand or cruelty by appellant No.2 (Raj Rani).
- Conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 (Kuljit Singh) affirmed.
- Conviction and sentence of appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) set aside.
- Appellant No.2 entitled to be acquitted.
Also Read: Enlargement on Bail in Illegal Mining Case
Decision
- Appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) set at liberty if not wanted in any other case.
- Bail bonds executed by Raj Rani to be cancelled.
- Pending applications to stand disposed of.
- Judgment in Sessions Case No.74/1999 and CRA-307-SB of 2002 modified accordingly.
- Appellant No.1 (Kuljit Singh) on bail to surrender within two weeks and serve remaining sentence.
- Appeal allowed in part to the mentioned extent.
Case Title: KULJIT SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (2021 INSC 838)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000572-000572 / 2012
