Case Note & Summary
The State of Haryana filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondent, Rajinder Singh, who had been convicted by the Sessions Judge along with two others under Sections 302/34 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Although the High Court acquitted all three convicts, the Supreme Court issued notice only against the respondent. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Vidya, died due to dowry-related harassment and was murdered by being assaulted with a lathi and thrown into a well. The State contended that the case was established by judicial and extra-judicial confessions, corroborated by injuries found on the deceased. It also argued that since the death occurred within seven years of marriage and had nexus with dowry demand, a presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 should be drawn that the respondent caused dowry death under Section 304-B IPC. The respondent countered that the trial court had not convicted under Section 304-B and the State had not appealed to the High Court on that count; however, the Supreme Court allowed examination of that section because a charge was framed and the respondent had notice. On merits, the Court found that the extra-judicial confession was rightly disbelieved by the High Court because it was allegedly made to the father of the deceased and in presence of two co-villagers. The statement recorded by the Magistrate, characterized as judicial confession, did not admit guilt in terms but stated abuse and assault on the deceased by mistake; therefore, it could not be used as a confession because a confession must be both true and voluntary. Regarding Section 304-B, the Court noted that the brothers of the deceased, Chotu and Tarachand, had stated on 28th March 1989 (death occurring on 27th March) that Vidya died by falling into a well due to loss of balance while drawing water. The inquest report mentioned a machine fitted in the well about 70 feet deep, and the postmortem injuries were consistent with a fall in such a well, as admitted by the autopsy surgeon in cross-examination. The Court accepted the defence version that a false case was instituted on 31st March, and it was not inclined to rely on the parents' evidence about dowry demand in light of Tarachand's statement that there was no illwill between the families. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent.
Headnote
A) Criminal Evidence - Extra-Judicial Confession - Evidentiary Value - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The High Court disbelieved the extra-judicial confession because it was allegedly made to the father of the deceased and in presence of two co-villagers; the Supreme Court observed that it is not acceptable that the respondent would make a confession of such a heinous crime in presence of so many persons. Held that the extra-judicial confession was unreliable and rightly discarded (Para 4). B) Criminal Evidence - Judicial Confession - Requisites of Confession - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The statement recorded by the Magistrate did not admit guilt in terms but stated abuse assault on the deceased by mistake; even if the statement were confessional, it could not be used because settled law requires a confession to be both true and voluntary. Held that the statement was not usable as a judicial confession (Para 4). C) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act in Section 304-B IPC Offence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B - Brothers of the deceased stated she died by falling into a well due to loss of balance while drawing water; there was no illwill between the families; injuries were consistent with a fall in a well fitted with a machine. The Court accepted the defence version that a false case was instituted on 31st March while death occurred on 27th March. Held that presumption of dowry death was not attracted and the acquittal under Section 304-B was affirmed (Paras 5-9). D) Criminal Evidence - Medical Evidence - Corroboration by Injuries - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Postmortem injuries including a lacerated wound in the perineal region and other small wounds could be caused during a fall in a well fitted with a pipe to support the water drawing machine, as admitted by the autopsy surgeon in cross-examination. Therefore, the injuries did not corroborate the prosecution case of lathi assault. Held that medical evidence supported accidental death (Paras 6-7). E) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Raising Alternative Charge - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B - The respondent argued that the State could not raise Section 304-B since the trial court did not convict under that section and the State did not appeal to the High Court against that acquittal; the Supreme Court stated it would be justified to examine the same because a charge under that section was framed and the respondent had notice. The Court then addressed the merits of that section. Held that the procedural objection was not accepted (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent under Sections 302/34 and 498-A IPC; whether the charge under Section 304-B IPC and presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applied; whether the State could argue Section 304-B despite no conviction by the trial court and no State appeal to the High Court on that count.
Final Decision
The appeal had no merit and was dismissed. The High Court's acquittal of the respondent was upheld.
Law Points
- Confession must be both true and voluntary to be used against maker
- extra-judicial confession made in presence of many persons unreliable
- statement not admitting guilt is not judicial confession
- presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act not attracted when evidence indicates accidental death
- medical evidence supporting accidental fall negatives prosecution case
