Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2014
b<
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2009
SANJAY KUMAR ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Appellant along with his father-Nanak Singh Arora and mother-Dinesh Arora were put on trial for offence under Section 302, 120-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short). Learned Additional Sessions Judge(I), Panchkula by the judgment and order dated 23.04.2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2000 acquitted the mother but convicted the appellant and his father under Section 302/34, 498-A and 120-B of the IPC. Both were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default clause, under Section 498-A of the IPC and life imprisonment both under Section 120-B and 302/34 of the IPC. Both of them have preferred an appeal and the High Court by its impugned judgment and order has acquitted the father-Nanak Singh Arora of all the charges but maintained the appellant’s conviction.
The criminal prosecution set into motion on the basis of a Report given by PW-8 Tarsem Kumar to the Panchkula Police Station on 17.06.1999 at 9.40 a.m. According to the prosecution, PW-8 Tarsem Kumar happens to be the brother of the deceased. He received a telephonic call from the deceased saying "they have given me something in the food. I am not feeling well as I am restless." She was taken to the General Hospital, Panchkula, and, from there she was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, where the Doctor declared her to be brought dead. During the course of the investigation, it transpired that it is the husband, the father- in-law and mother-in-law who had administered poison to the deceased and, ultimately, they were chargesheeted. Thereafter, they were committed to the Court of Sessions where they had denied to have committed any offence and from the trend of the cross examination their defence seems to be that the deceased had committed suicide. On appraisal of the evidence, as stated earlier, the trial court held the appellant and his father guilty but acquitted the mother. On appeal, the High Court reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts so far as this appellant is concerned but granted his father the benefit of doubt.
Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, assails the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34 and 120-B of the IPC. He submits that there is no material to connect the appellant with the crime. He points out that the only material to connect the appellant with the crime is the alleged oral dying declaration given by the deceased to her brother. He draws our attention to the evidence of PW-8 Tarsem Kumar and submits that from his evidence it is apparent that the deceased had not disclosed the name of any of the accused. In the dying declaration, the expression said to have been used by the deceased is that "they have given me something in the food."
On the other hand, Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, however, submits that the appellant and his parents were only the adult members in the family and when the deceased used the expression ’they’ in her dying declaration, it means only those adult members.
We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and we find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The deceased in the oral dying declaration said to have been given to her brother, PW-8 Tarsem Kumar, has not named anybody. She has stated that they have given her something in the food. On the same set of evidence the mother-in-law and father-in-law have been acquitted. Their acquittal has become final. Nothing has brought to our notice from which the case of the appellant can be distinguished. In the circumstances, we feel it unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34 and 120-B of the IPC.
So far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 498- A of the IPC is concerned, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence in this regard. PW-9 Sulakshana, the sister- in-law of the deceased, has given in detail the manner in which the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant. Therefore, we do not find any error so far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of the IPC is concerned.
In the result, we partly allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34 and 120-B of the IPC. However, the conviction and sentence under Section 498- A is maintained.
..........................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) ..........................J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) New Delhi;
January 22, 2014
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1292 OF 2009
SANJAY KUMAR Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 22/01/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE For Appellant(s) Mr. Jaspal Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Adv. Mr. Ashutosh K. Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Manjit Singh, A.A.G. Mr. Vikas Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed order.
| (S.K. Rakheja) | |(Indu Satija) |
|Court Master | |Assistant Registrar |
(Signed order is placed on the file)