SATBIR SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA

 

CASE ANALYSIS ON:

 SATBIR SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA

 

Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1735­1736 OF 2010

 

Date of the judgment: 28th May 2021

 

Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

 

Bench: CJI N.V. Ramana, Justice Aniruddha Bose

 

Facts of the case

The accused (appellant no. 1) was married to the deceased on 1^st July 1994. After around one year on 31^st July 1995 at 4:00 pm, the father of the deceased heard the news that his daughter (deceased) was admitted to the hospital. When father and his son reached the hospital, they got to know that his daughter died due to severe injuries. According to the doctor, there were traces of Kerosene which were found on the body of the deceased. 85% of the body was damaged due to burn injuries. According to the witnesses, the deceased was the victim of harassment and cruelty related to dowry.

On 11 December 1997, the trial court gave the judgment and held the accused liable for cruelty under section 304B and 306 of Indian Penal Code. The accused then appealed to the High Court, but the case was dismissed on 6^th November 2008. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction granted by the trial court.

 

Issues

·       Whether the conviction of cruelty under section 304B of IPC, held by Trial Court and the High Court was correct or not?

·       Whether the charge of abetment of suicide provided under section 306 of IPC under which the accused was held, was right or not?

 

 

 

Contention by Parties

According to the accused, the reason of the death of deceased was not proved yet. The prosecution counsel was unable to prove that there was any demand of dowry or not. And further the prosecution was unable to prove that whether the reason for the death is connected to demand of dowry.

 

Judgment

 The court referred to the case of Major Singh v State of Punjab in which the main ingredients of the case was burn injuries and the harassment within 7 years of marriage which clearly stated the requirements of section 304B. There are no restraint formulae that can be set down under the steady gaze of this court. It is the court to decide whether the period between the savagery or provocation and the passing of the casualty would go in close vicinity to the term soon previously. Foundation of a general and live connection between the mercilessness and the important passing of the casualty is essential for its assurance.

The court also referred to the case of BansiLal v State of Haryana where it was held that if the cruelty or harassment has been mentioned soon before the death then it can be considered as dowry death. The compulsory assumption against blamed makes more noteworthy obligation on judges, guard and indictment. Along these lines the assessment of a blamed under Section 313 for CrPC cannot be treated as a simple procedural custom.

In this way, it forces a commitment concerning the Court to scrutinize the blamed reasonably, with care and mindfulness. The Court should put implicating conditions before the denounced and look for his reaction. An obligation is additionally projected on the advice of the denounced to set up his safeguard, since the beginning of the preliminary, with a due alert, keeping in thought the eccentricities of Section 304B of IPC read with Section 113B of Evidence Act.

The court additionally holds the significance of area 232 CrPC that if the court observed that the denounced isn't qualified to be vindicated according to the arrangements of Section 232 CrPC, it should continue and fix hearings explicitly for guard proof.