STATE OF HARYANA Vs. INDER SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 29,2002
STATE OF HARYANA
Appellant
VERSUS
INDER SINGH
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
KADAM SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2023-5-141] [REFERRED TO]RAHUL DEV VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-72] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-118] [REFERRED TO]
Prem Kumar VS. State of H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2010-10-153] [REFERRED TO]
PARSU SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
MANTOO SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-37] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. HIRA KARASHAN BORICHA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. LAL BABU MAHTO [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-186] [REFERRED TO]
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRATAP SINGH @ KRISHNA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-115] [REFERRED TO]
GURU BAKSH SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
MAZHAR HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-258] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMLAL DEVAPPA RATHOD AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-9-155] [REFERRED TO]
ASHFAQ VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-65] [REFERRED TO]
BHOLA SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-364] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM VEER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-126] [REFERRED TO]
LAL MANI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2020-5-83] [REFERRED TO]
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. LALLU RAM [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN KHOKAR VS. CBI [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-398] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DINESH [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-160] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2006-2-516] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANT @ LALA SON OF KRISHNA KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH P.P. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-154] [REFERRED TO]
MICHELRAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-294] [REFERRED TO]
S RAGHUNATHA GOUNDER VS. PATTAPPA GOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-157] [REFERRED TO]
JAI RAM HARIJAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
DALIP KUMAR VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA HUSSAIN VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
SINTU VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-219] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNARESH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(SC)-2012-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA KANT DUBEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-84] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. SATVEER AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA HUSSAIN VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-200] [REFERRED TO]
PREETAM SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-231] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. DHARMENDER @ TITTU & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-330] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
SUKUMAR MAHALDAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2013-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)For the death of Smt. Rano @ Amarjeet kaur allegedly under abnormal circumstances, the respondents were tried and convicted under sections 304b and 498a of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the commission of the offence under section 304-B and 2 years for the offence under section 498a IPC, besides a fine of Rs. 100. 00, each. The appeal preferred by the accused respondents was allowed by the High Court vide the judgment impugned in this appeal by way of special leave.
(2.)The facts of the case are that deceased smt. Rano aged 20-21 years was married to Roshan, respondent no. 2, about 1-1/2 years before the date of occurrence. After the marriage, respondent Inder Singh, father-in-law of deceased and Roshan, her husband are alleged to have started demanding dowry and upon the failure of the deceased to fulfill their demands, harassing her. On 19,7.1990, Dhanna Singh - pw4, father of the deceased got information that her daughter had committed suicide by taking poison allegedly on account of not being in a position to satisfy the demands of her in-laws. Dhanna Singh went to Kaithal, where the deceased was married, and saw her dead body. He reported the matter to the police alleging that his daughter ended her life by taking poison as she was tortured by the respondents accused for bringing inadequate dowry. On the basis of the statement of Dhanna Singh - PW4, formal FIR was recorded and the investigation commenced. To prove the case, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses, most of whom were declared hostile at the trial.
(3.)The trial court relying upon the sole testimony of Dhanna Singh -PW4 convicted the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment as noted earlier. In appeal, the High court re-appreciated the evidence and for reasons recorded in the impugned judgment thought it not fit to rely upon the testimony of PW4 and thus, acquitted the accused persons.
(2.)The facts of the case are that deceased smt. Rano aged 20-21 years was married to Roshan, respondent no. 2, about 1-1/2 years before the date of occurrence. After the marriage, respondent Inder Singh, father-in-law of deceased and Roshan, her husband are alleged to have started demanding dowry and upon the failure of the deceased to fulfill their demands, harassing her. On 19,7.1990, Dhanna Singh - pw4, father of the deceased got information that her daughter had committed suicide by taking poison allegedly on account of not being in a position to satisfy the demands of her in-laws. Dhanna Singh went to Kaithal, where the deceased was married, and saw her dead body. He reported the matter to the police alleging that his daughter ended her life by taking poison as she was tortured by the respondents accused for bringing inadequate dowry. On the basis of the statement of Dhanna Singh - PW4, formal FIR was recorded and the investigation commenced. To prove the case, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses, most of whom were declared hostile at the trial.
(3.)The trial court relying upon the sole testimony of Dhanna Singh -PW4 convicted the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment as noted earlier. In appeal, the High court re-appreciated the evidence and for reasons recorded in the impugned judgment thought it not fit to rely upon the testimony of PW4 and thus, acquitted the accused persons.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.