NDLI: Girish Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	s.304B r/w s.34 Dowry death Appeal against acquittal Scope of interference IPC
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: s.304B r/w s.34 – Dowry death – Appellants-accused were father and son – Victim deceased was wife of accused no.1 – Case against the appellants was that the deceased was treated with cruelty on account of dowry demand – The victimdeceased committed suicide by burning – Trial court held that prosecution failed to prove case against both the appellants-accused and ordered acquittal – Before High Court, appellants produced letters to show that there was no cruelty, however, High Court held that actual letters written by the deceased showing cruelty could not be produced as they were misplaced due to shifting of the house – High Court accepted the deposition given by prosecution witnesses as reliable and trustworthy and convicted the appellants under s.304B r/w s.34 – On appeal, held: The evidence of the mother of the deceased did not reflect that deceased ever complained about accused having harassed or beaten on account of dowry – Also, there were serious contradictions in the evidence of the father of the deceased – The two letters alleged to have been written by deceased were not produced by the prosecution on the plea that they were misplaced during shifting of the house – Even, if it is accepted that those letters were misplaced, the letters admittedly sent by the father of the deceased to his deceased daughter within few days of the receipt of the letters did not disclose anything about the harassment or cruelty or dowry demand – Even, in the letter written by father of the deceased to his son, there was no mention about any harassment or cruelty on account of dowry demand – High Court, however, still took the view that dowry related harassment was mentioned in the letters sent by the deceased which were not even produced – This approach, particularly, in an appeal against acquittal was clearly unacceptable – Case under s.304B, thus, not made out – Conviction set aside.Penal Code, 1860: s.304B – Scope of trial under – Appellants-accused were father and son – Victim deceased was wife of accused no.1 – Allegation that accused-father wanted to fulfil his lust with his daughter-in-law and as she did not agree he used to torture her and give her beating – The victim-deceased committed suicide by burning – High Court convicted the appellants under s.304B r/w s.34, however found that offence under s.306 was not made out – On appeal, held: The case of abetting suicide under s.306 r/w s.34 was found unacceptable both by the trial court and High Court and appellants were acquitted of said offence – A perusal of the impugned judgment showed that accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses, the High Court was persuaded to hold inter alia that the second accused also harassed her by asking her to provide liquor in the glass, and after taking liquor, in the state of intoxication, he used to ask her to sleep with him and on her refusal, subjected her to mental cruelty – High Court was in clear error in taking into consideration the evidence relating to harassment by the second accused on the basis that he, in the state of intoxication, asked her to sleep with him, and on that basis, she was subjected to mental cruelty – The said evidence is totally irrelevant and foreign to the scope of a trial for the offence under s.304B – It did not relate, at all, to the demand for dowry – High Court overstepped its limits in dealing with an appeal against acquittal – The view taken by the trial court was a possible one and did not merit interference by the Appellate Court – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113B.Appeal: Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference – Discussed. Criminal trial: Evidence – Chief examination and crossexamination of witnesses – Held: Truth in a criminal trial is discovered by not merely going through the cross-examination of the witnesses – There must be an analysis of the chief-examination of the witnesses in conjunction with the cross-examination and the re-examination, if any – The effect of what other witnesses have deposed must also enter into consideration of the matter – Evidence.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 796
Petitioner	Girish Singh
Respondent	The State Of Uttarakhand
SCR	[2019] 9 S.C.R. 668
Judgement Date	2019-07-23
Case Number	1475

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Girish Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Please Log-in to view this content

Nimay Sah Vs. State of Jharkhand

Vijay Pal Singh and Others Vs. State of Utiarakhand

Sandeep Kumar and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Pradeep Vs. The State of Haryana

State of Haryana Vs. Angoori Devi & Anr.

Devender Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Mahadevappa Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. By Public Prosecutor

Munishamappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Girish Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Girish Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Nimay Sah Vs. State of Jharkhand

Vijay Pal Singh and Others Vs. State of Utiarakhand

Sandeep Kumar and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Pradeep Vs. The State of Haryana

State of Haryana Vs. Angoori Devi & Anr.

Devender Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Mahadevappa Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. By Public Prosecutor

Munishamappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Girish Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand