Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Gopal Dutt vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 21 November 2019 · Citation: (2019) 11 SC CK 0191

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohan M. Shantanagoud, J · Krishna Murari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 136 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302, 304B · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 313, 322, 428
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1730 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 689 words

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

Both the courts the Trial Court as well as the High Court have convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

Though learned counsel for the appellant tries to take shelter under Section 322 of the Cr.P.C. seeking remand of the case to the Trial Court, we do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, inasmuch as after adding the charge under Section 302 IPC, the evidence was recorded afresh and the plea of accused was also recorded afresh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. based on additional evidence. It is clear from the records that fair opportunity was given to the appellant after adding the charge under Section 302 IPC. It is relevant to note that  the original charge as framed by the Trial Court was under Section 304B of the IPC.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant is the husband of the deceased; only, the husband and wife were living in the matrimonial house; the victim has died because of the burn injuries in the matrimonial house; the appellant-accused also sustained burn injuries apart from other simple scratch injuries; he was also admitted to the hospital at 6.00 a.m. the next day, since he had consumed poison; the police tried to record his statement in the hospital but he was not in a fit condition to make statement. The record reveals that the deceased had suffered 95% burn injuries and died instantaneously.

Learned counsel for the appellant while taking us through the record, submitted that it is not a case of murder, it may be a case of dowry death which may be punishable under Section 304B of IPC. Learned counsel draws attention of the court to the fact that the appellant-accused also had consumed poison; he had also sustained several burn injuries which have remained unexplained by the prosecution. The evidence collected by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the accused under Section 302 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State argued in support of judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court.

Ample evidence is available on record to show that the accused used to torture the victim physically and mentally and used to demand dowry. It is the specific case of the prosecution and the same is proved that the accused used to demand dowry and harass the victim both physically and mentally.

It is not in dispute that the incident has taken place in the matrimonial house and only, the appellant-accused and his wife-deceased were in the house. The deceased died due to 95% burn injuries and the accused also sustained burn injuries apart from other injuries. Poison was detected in the body of the accused and he also was admitted to hospital since he fell seriously sick due to consuming poison.

From the aforementioned facts, circumstances of the case the the evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that the deceased has committed suicide by setting herself ablaze after pouring kerosene and while saving the life of the deceased, the accused also sustained burn injuries. Thereafter, it seems that the accused also tried to commit suicide by consuming poison. We do not want to burden this judgment by quoting the evidence of the prosecution at this stage of Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Looking to the totality of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is a case of dowry death and that the accused-appellant herein has committed the same. Therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.

Having heard learned counsel on sentence, we impose sentence of ten years on the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC. The period already undergone in prison by the accused-appellant shall be given set off as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Ordered accordingly.

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.