Narwindet Singh V/s State of Punjab

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2011-01-05
Case No: 590 of 2005
Case Type: Appeal (Criminal)
Judge Name: B. Sudershan Reddy & Surinder Singh Nijjar
Subject: Criminal Law -Abetment of Suicide
Statutes / Acts: Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Section: s.306
Bench Strength: Double Bench
Advocate: V.C. Mahajan, Sarwa Mitter (P) & Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, H.S. Sandhu et. al (R)
State of Appellant(s): Punjab
History of Case No: the Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2004 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 406-SB of 1992
Equal Citation Details :

 2011(1)Crimes200(SC), II(2011)DMC474SC, 2011(1)JCC334(SC), JT2011(1)SC89, 2011(2)KCCRSN84, 2011(1)N.C.C.623, 2011(3)PLJR272, 2011(1)RCR(Criminal)427, RLW2011(1)SC573, 2011(1)SCALE114, (2011)2SCC47, (2011)1SCC(Cri)601, [2011]1SCR110, 2011(1)ACR350(SC), AIR2011SC686, 2011(2)ALD(Cri)36,

Case Note / Description :

The High Court has recorded a firm finding that the harassment was not for or in connection with any de AND s for dowry. But, at the same time, the High Court has concluded that the wife committed suicide due to the harassment of the appellant, in particular. The deceased had committed suicide by drinking Organo Phosphorus poison. In such circumstances, the High Court was, therefore, fully justified in convicting the appellant u/s 306 IPC. [para 9-10] [118-E-H; 119-A-D] 2.1. It cannot be said that the appellant could not have been convicted u/s 306 IPC in the absence of a charge being framed against him under the said section. Both the trial court AND the High Court have held that the deceased had committed suicide. Therefore, the nature of the offence u/s 304-B AND 306 IPC are not distinct AND different categories. Mere omission or defect in framing charge would not disable the court from convicting the accused for the offence which has been found to be proved on the basis of the evidence on record. In such circumstances, the matter would fall within the purview of ss. 221 (1) AND (2) Cr.P.C. The High Court upon meticulous scrutiny of the entire evidence on record rightly concluded that there was no evidence to indicate the commission of the offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC. It was also observed that the deceased had committed suicide due to harassment meted out to her by the appellant but there was no evidence on record to suggest that such harassment or cruelty was made in connection to any dowry de AND s. Thus, cruelty or harassment sans any dowry de AND s which drives the wife to commit suicide attracts the offence of `abetment of suicide' u/s 306 IPC AND not s. 304-B IPC which defines the offence AND punishment for `dowry death'. 

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)