1987 JTR(SC) 473
1987 AIR(SC) 1368 ; 1987 CriLR 393 ; 1987 CriLR(Cal) 149 ; 1987 2 Crimes(SC) 418 ; 1987 CrLJ 1127 ; 1987 EastCrC(SC) 386 ; 1987 2 HinduLR 167 ; 1987 2 JT 278 ; 1987 PLJR(SC) 45 ; 1987 2 RCR(Cri) 63 ; 1987 RLR 337 ; 1987 1 Scale 1172 ; 1987 2 SCC 631 ; 1987 SCC(Cri) 431 ; 1987 2 SCR 1221 ; 1987 2 UJ 223 ; 1987 KHC 973
A.P. SEN AND B. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1978,
D/- 28-4-1987.
Kailash Kaur, Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT : S.32
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.304(b), S.302
(A) The offences attract provisions of Indian Penal Code sections 304(b) and 302 read with Evidence Act section 32, governing dowry death and murder where the killing results from cruelty linked to dowry demands and the dying declaration forms the primary evidence of the accused's act. The case involves a woman subjected to severe harassment and torture for dowry, culminating in an offence of murder by burning, with the deceased's dying declaration and corroborative circumstantial evidence being evaluated under these statutory provisions to determine liability.
(B) Key legal principles include the admissibility and evidentiary value of dying declarations under Evidence Act section 32, the threshold for conviction in dowry death and murder cases under Indian Penal Code sections 304(b) and 302, and the requirement for the court to act strictly and award maximum penalty as a deterrent where the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts of the case:
A young wife was subjected to prolonged physical and mental harassment and torture by her husband and his family for dowry. She wrote a letter detailing the abuse and expressed fear for her life. She was doused with kerosene oil and set on fire by the accused, leading to severe burns and death. The dying declaration, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence corroborated the account. The trial court convicted one accused and acquitted another, and one accused was acquitted at the high court.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found the dying declaration credible, supported by corroborating evidence, and sufficient to convict the appellant. The court rejected the appeal, confirmed the conviction, and expressed regret that the trial court did not impose the maximum penalty, noting that the State did not seek enhancement.
Issues:
Whether the dying declaration is reliable and sufficient for conviction in a dowry-related murder case.
Whether the high court's acquittal of one accused was correct.
Whether the sentence imposed was adequate.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that where a dying declaration clearly identifies the accused as the perpetrator of a dowry-related murder and is corroborated by circumstantial evidence, it is sufficient for conviction under sections 302 and 304(b) of the Indian Penal Code, and the court must impose the maximum penalty to serve as a deterrent.
Result:
The appeal was dismissed, the conviction was upheld, and the appellant was directed to surrender to custody to serve the sentence.
(A) The offences attract provisions of Indian Penal Code sections 304(b) and 302 read with Evidence Act section 32, governing dowry death and murder where the killing results from cruelty linked to dowry demands and the dying declaration forms the primary evidence of the accused's act. The case involves a woman subjected to severe harassment and torture for dowry, culminating in an offence of murder by burning, with the deceased's dying declaration and corroborative circumstantial evidence being evaluated under these statutory provisions to determine liability.
(B) Key legal principles include the admissibility and evidentiary value of dying declarations under Evidence Act section 32, the threshold for conviction in dowry death and murder cases under Indian Penal Code sections 304(b) and 302, and the requirement for the court to act strictly and award maximum penalty as a deterrent where the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts of the case:
A young wife was subjected to prolonged physical and mental harassment and torture by her husband and his family for dowry. She wrote a letter detailing the abuse and expressed fear for her life. She was doused with kerosene oil and set on fire by the accused, leading to severe burns and death. The dying declaration, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence corroborated the account. The trial court convicted one accused and acquitted another, and one accused was acquitted at the high court.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found the dying declaration credible, supported by corroborating evidence, and sufficient to convict the appellant. The court rejected the appeal, confirmed the conviction, and expressed regret that the trial court did not impose the maximum penalty, noting that the State did not seek enhancement.
Issues:
Whether the dying declaration is reliable and sufficient for conviction in a dowry-related murder case.
Whether the high court's acquittal of one accused was correct.
Whether the sentence imposed was adequate.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that where a dying declaration clearly identifies the accused as the perpetrator of a dowry-related murder and is corroborated by circumstantial evidence, it is sufficient for conviction under sections 302 and 304(b) of the Indian Penal Code, and the court must impose the maximum penalty to serve as a deterrent.
Result:
The appeal was dismissed, the conviction was upheld, and the appellant was directed to surrender to custody to serve the sentence.
A.N.Mulla, Harjinder Singh, R.C.Kohli, R.L.Kohli, R.S.SODHI
Judgement
BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J.:- This is yet another unfortunate instance of gruesome murder of a young wife by the barbaric process of pouring kerosene oil over the body and setting her on fire as the culmination of a long process of physical and mental harassment for extraction of more dowry. Whenever such cases come before the Court and the offence is brought home to the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it is the duty of the Court to deal with it in most severe and strict manner and award the maximum penalty prescribed by the law in order that it may operate as a deterrent to other persons from committing such anti-social crimes.
2. Amandeep Kaur, deceased, was married to Avtar Singh who figured as the first accused in the case in the Sessions Court. Kailash Kaur, the appellant, is the mother-in-law of the deceased and Mahinder Kaur who figured as the third accused in the case is the sister of Avtar Singh. The husband and his parents were allegedly unhappy about the quantum of dowry brought by the deceased and she was being subjected to severe harassment and maltreatment with a view to extract more dowry from her parents. Exhibit PK is a letter written by the deceased to her father Atar Singh (P.W. 3) in which she has set out the details of the harassment and maltreatment and expressed her grave apprehension that unless she was immediately taken back to the fathers house, her life itself was in imminent danger. On May 30,1974, in the evening, Kailash Kaur and Mahinder Kaur started quarrelling with the deceased and severely abused and threatened her. Thereupon, the deceased went to her room and bolted its door from inside. Sometime later Avtar Singh, husband of the deceased, came to the house and started knocking at the door of the said room with great force because of which the door got unbolted. It would appear that after the door was opened Avtar Singh went away from the house. It is the prosecution case that immediately thereafter Mahinder Kaur caught hold of the deceased and Kailash Kaur (appellant) poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. The deceased started screaming on hearing which the people residing in the locality rushed to the house. Avtar Singh, the husband also reached there in the meantime. As she was engulfed in flames, somebody put a blanket on Amandeep Kaur and extinguished the flames. Thereafter she was carried to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. Dr. Har Parkash Bhatia (P.W. 2), who examined her sent information to the local police station on receipt of which Head Constable Naranjan Singh (P.W.7) went over to the hospital. The doctor sent everybody other than the Head Constable out of the room where the patient was lying. He told the deceased that he would put her questions about the cause of her death. On the basis of the questions put by the doctor, Head Constable Naranjan Singh (P.W.7) recorded her statement, on the basis of which formal First Information Report was lodged at Police Station, Hoshiapur. Amandeep Kaur expired on June 1, 1974.
3. At the trial the prosecution relied on Ex. PF/3, the dying declaration made by the deceased Amandeep Kaur, the letter Ex. PK written by her to her father Atar Singh (P.W. 3) and the evidence of P.W. 3 wherein he stated that the appellant, her son and daughter were dissatisfied about the quantum of dowry brought by Amandeep Kaur and on that account they had been torturing her. The learned trial Judge acting on the aforesaid evidence convicted Kailash Kaur and Mahinder Kaur of the offence under S. 302, I.P.C. and acquitted Avtar Singh, the husband, accused giving him the benefit of doubt.
4. Kailash Kaur and Mahinder Kaur carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant herein namely, Kailash Kaur, but acquitted Mahinder Kaur giving her the benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court after obtaining special leave.
5. Notwithstanding the learned and persuasive arguments advanced before us by Shri A. N. Mulla, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, we find absolutely no merit in this appeal. There is no reason whatever not to act upon the dying declaration of the deceased wherein she has given a clear and vivid account of the pouring of kerosene oil over body and her being set on fire by the appellant. She had also implicated Mahinder Kaur as the person who held her while the kerosene oil was being poured on her body by the appellant. We have very grave doubts about the legality, propriety and correctness of the decision of the High Court in so far as it has acquitted Mahinder Kaur by giving her the benefit of doubt. But since the State has not preferred any appeal, we are not called upon to go into that aspect any further.
6. In addition to the dying declaration there is also clear circumstantial evidence furnished by the letter Ex. PK and the testimony of Atar Singh (P.W.3) father of the deceased regarding the demands for dowry and the harassment and torture inflicted on the deceased by the accused as part of the endeavour to extract more dowry. The dying declaration made by the deceased has the ring of truth and the testimony of the doctor P.W. 2 and of the Head Constable P.W. 7 clearly establishes that she was in a fit condition to make the statement. The conviction of the appellant by the High Court was, therefore, fully justified and there is absolutely no ground for interference wit the same by this Court. We only express our regret that the Sessions Judge did not treat this as a fit case for awarding the maximum penalty under the law and that no steps were taken by the State Government before the High Court for enhancement of the sentence.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bond of the appellant will stand cancelled and she will be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining portion of her sentence.
Appeal dismissed.