State of Uttarakhand Vs. Ummed Singh and Others

State of Uttarakhand vs Ummed Singh and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Uttaranchal Decided May 22, 2013

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1116009

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1116009
Court: Uttaranchal High Court
Judge: The Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Barin Ghosh &Amp; Servesh Kumar Gupta
Decided On: May 22, 2013
Case Number: Government Appeal No. 314 of 2008
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Uttarakhand

Respondent

Ummed Singh and Others

Excerpt

.....of almora, and that she committed suicide. the complainant expressed his apprehension that the husband and in-laws of smt. madhu have killed her and threw her dead body, as whenever smt. madhu came to her maternal house, she had complained of the accused respondents that they were harassing her for dowry. 3. on the basis of the above report, a case was registered against the accused respondents for the offences under section 304b and 201 ipc. after completion of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet for the said offences, and charges were framed, accordingly, on 12.3.2004 against the accused respondents. however, the trial ended in the acquittal of the accused respondents, as in the opinion of the trial judge the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused respondents committed dowry death. 4. before the trial court, the prosecution examined the complainant sunil patwal as pw1, surendra singh patwal, father of the deceased, as pw2, smt. guddi devi, aunt of the deceased, as pw3 and dr. yogesh chandra sharma, who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, as pw6, besides three other witnesses i.e. pw4, pw5 and pw7, who were involved in the investigation of the case and other related formalities. 5. in the instant case, it is undisputed that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage and that she did not die under normal circumstances, as we gather from the statement of the accused respondents, recorded under section 313 cr pc, where in reply to question no. 1, all the accused respondents have admitted that smt. madhu was married in the year 1998, and in reply to question no. 4, all of them have further admitted that she died under abnormal circumstances between 7th to 8th june, 2002. 6. now, in order to prove the offences under section 304b ipc against the accused respondents, it was thus necessary for the prosecution to establish that soon before her death, the deceased must have been subjected to.....

Full Judgment

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This Government Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.8.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 58/2003, whereby the accused respondents, namely, Ummed Singh, Vikram Singh and Smt. Bichhana Devi have been acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Section 304B and 201 IPC.

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.6.2002, a report was lodged by Sunil Patwal with the averments that about four years ago, his cousin sister Madhu alias Mandodari Devi was married to Vikram Singh, S/o Ummedi Singh, and out of this wedlock two offsprings were born. Sunil Patwal has further averred that on 8.6.2002, Ummed Singh (the father-in-law of deceased), came at his house and told him that his daughter-in-law Madhu was missing since 7.6.2002, and he asked the complainant to inform him in case she come there. The complainant has further averred that Ummed Singh again came at his house in the evening of the same day and informed him that dead body of Madhu was lying in the forest of Shankarpur Marchul at the boarder of Almora, and that she committed suicide. The complainant expressed his apprehension that the husband and in-laws of Smt. Madhu have killed her and threw her dead body, as whenever Smt. Madhu came to her maternal house, she had complained of the accused respondents that they were harassing her for dowry.

3. On the basis of the above report, a case was registered against the accused respondents for the offences under Section 304B and 201 IPC. After completion of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet for the said offences, and charges were framed, accordingly, on 12.3.2004 against the accused respondents. However, the trial ended in the acquittal of the accused respondents, as in the opinion of the Trial Judge the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused respondents committed dowry death.

4. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined the complainant Sunil Patwal as PW1, Surendra Singh Patwal, father of the deceased, as PW2, Smt. Guddi Devi, aunt of the deceased, as PW3 and Dr. Yogesh Chandra Sharma, who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, as PW6, besides three other witnesses i.e. PW4, PW5 and PW7, who were involved in the investigation of the case and other related formalities.

5. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage and that she did not die under normal circumstances, as we gather from the statement of the accused respondents, recorded under Section 313 Cr PC, where in reply to question no. 1, all the accused respondents have admitted that Smt. Madhu was married in the year 1998, and in reply to question no. 4, all of them have further admitted that she died under abnormal circumstances between 7^thto 8^thJune, 2002.

6. Now, in order to prove the offences under Section 304B IPC against the accused respondents, it was thus necessary for the prosecution to establish that soon before her death, the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, which the prosecution has failed to establish before the trial court, as we gather from the post-mortem report that no mark of injury was found on the body of the deceased, which the concerned Dr. Yogesh Chandra Sharma has proved in his testimony. He has stated that since the cause of death could not be ascertained, viscera of the deceased was preserved and the same was sent to the forensic laboratory for examination. However, he has admitted that the symptoms, found on the body of the deceased, were indicating that she might have died because of poison, and her death occurred between the morning of 7.6.2002 to 8.6.2002. Subsequently, the report Ex. Ka-7, given by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra revealed the presence of the poison âOrganochloro Insecticide in the parts of her viscera.

7. Learned trial court was of opinion that though the PW1 to PW3 have stated that the deceased was being harassed by the accused respondents for dowry, however, it appears that the court below has given accused the benefit of the fact that since no ante mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased, who was diagnosed to be suffering with epilepsy, the case of dowry death was not made out against the accused, as the essential ingredient of cruelty or harassment is not proved against them. Trial court expressed that deceased might have committed suicide by consuming poison because of depression, as she was suffering with epilepsy.

8. Having considered the evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that though the case of dowry death may not have been conclusively proved against the accused respondents, but it is undisputed that the deceased died in mysterious circumstances. She died of poison. Her dead body was found far away in the forest. It was recovered by one of the accused Ummed Singh, father-in-law of the deceased. It seems a bit unusual that if the deceased decided to commit suicide, then it was not necessary for her to go far away in the forest for doing the same. As such, the possibility cannot be ruled out that she might have been killed by giving poison.

9. So, in the circumstances of case, we are of the opinion that the trial court ought to have framed an alternative charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC, while framing the charge under Section 304B IPC, as has also been expressed by the Honble Apex Court in Crl. MP No. 23051/2010, Rajbir @ Raju and 5 Another v. State of Haryana, wherein vide order dated 22^ndNovember 2010, all the trial courts in India have been directed to ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of Section 304B IPC.

10. However, in the instant matter, though the case of dowry death could not be conclusively proved against the accused respondents, but since the alternative charge of Section 302 IPC was not framed against them, this Court is unable to appreciate the evidence on record to find out whether the offence of Section 302 IPC is made out against the accused respondents or not.

11. The above being the position, we dismiss this appeal preferred by the State and uphold the finding of acquittal of the accused respondents as recorded by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 6.8.2008. LCR be sent back.

Same Court & Year Uttaranchal · 2013 Same Parties State of Uttarakhand vs Ummed Singh and Others Same Subject Criminal Same Judge The Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Barin Ghosh &Amp; Servesh Ku...