Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. In this appeal the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala dated 5-5-1998/14-5-1998 in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1998 convicting him of the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under both the counts. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant Budhi Singh is the husband of deceased Smt. Veena Devi.

19. The Apex Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh reported in 1990 SCC (Cri) 151 : 1990 Cri LJ 562 : AIR 1990 SC 209 in a case Under Section 306, I.P.C. observed (at page 564 of Cri LJ) :

While civil case may be proved by mere preponderance of evidence, in criminal case the prosecution must prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. This is so even after the introduction of Section 498-A, I.P.C. and Section 113-A, Evidence Act. The Courts must strictly be satisfied that no innocent person, innocent in the sense of not being guilty of the offence of which he is charged, is convicted, even at the risk of letting of some guilty persons. There is higher standard of proof in criminal cases than in civil cases. But there is no absolute standard in either of the cases. The doubt must be of a reasonable man. The standard adopted must be the standard adopted by a prudent man which, of course, may vary from case to case, circumstances to circumstances. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law. Reasonable doubt is simply that degree of doubt which would permit a reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of the offence to be investigated.

28. On re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record the reasoning of the trial Judge convicting the appellant under Section 304-B, I.P.C. cannot be held sustainable. The corollary of the aforesaid finding is that the appellant cannot be convicted of the offence under Section 304-B, I.P.C.

29. As noticed above, from the evidence based on two dying declarations of Veena Devi which find corroboration from the oral testimony of Doctor, Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Investigating Officer, there is overwhelming evidence against the appellant that he has committed an offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and the evidence of these witnesses and dying declarations of deceased Veena Devi were found reliable, cogent and convincing, I hold that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge under Section 498-A, I.P.C. against the appellant.

30. I, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304-B, I.P.C. but I find him guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Judge to that extent is confirmed. It is needless to say that if the appellant has already completed the period of imprisonment under Section 498-A, I.P.C. including default of payment of fine, if not paid by him, the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part indicated hereinabove.