Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 450 of 2007

BHUPINDER SINGH ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF H.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out

of the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court

whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced to

life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code for having committed the murder of his wife Sonia.

At the initial stage, the appellant and his parents

were charged for offences punishable under Section 304B

and in the alternative under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code. The trial court acquitted the parents but

convicted the appellant herein for the offence under

Section 304B of the IPC. Two appeals were thereafter

filed in the High Court, one by the accused, and the

other by the State of Himachal Pradesh, challenging the

acquittal of the appellants under the charge under

Section 302 of the IPC. The State appeal insofar as

the parents was concerned was dismissed but was allowed

Crl.A. No. 450 of 2007 2

insofar as the appellant was concerned and his

conviction under Section 304B was set aside and he was

convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced

accordingly. It is in this background that the matter

is before us.

2. The only question which arises in this matter is

as to whether the deceased met a homicial death or she

had committed suicide. The trial court had held that

she had met a suicidal death and the appellant was

liable to conviction for the offence under Section 304B

of the IPC. The High Court has reversed that finding.

We see that the judgment of the High Court is based

primarily on the evidence of P.W. 15. Dr. V.K. Mishra,

Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Science ,

R.P.G. Medical College, Kangra. The doctor deposed

that he had conducted about 50 post mortems in which a

distinction had to be drawn whether the death was

suicidal or homicidal and on an examination of the dead

body of the victim herein, Sonia, the only conclusion

that he could draw was that it was a case of homicidal

death. The doctor also gave several reasons to show

that the death had occurred by asphyxia and not by

hanging. These reasons and his conclusions have been

dealt with elaborately in the judgment of the High

Crl.A. No. 450 of 2007 3

Court and need not be reproduced herein.

3. Mr. Siddharth Dave, the learned Amicus Curiae

has, however, argued that the over all reading of the

statement of PW 15 would indicate that it had not been

conclusively proved that the death had occurred because

of strangulation and a doubt still persisted that it

could be a case of hanging. We have gone through the

evidence of the doctor and find that he was fully

confident of his opinion and had given very sound

reasons as to how the death had been caused by

strangulation. We also see from the post mortem report

that the dupatta that had been allegedly used by the

victim to hang herself did not bear any wrinkles and

seemed to be in a good condition. This too has been

found to be the factor in determining that it is not a

case of hanging. It must also be noticed that the

accident happened about a year and a half after the

marriage had taken place between the deceased and the

appellant. It is also the conceded position that he

was present in the house at the crucial time. We,

therefore, find no merit in the appeal which is

dismissed.

4. Fee of the Amicus is fixed at ` 7,000/-.

Crl.A. No. 450 of 2007 4

.........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI APRIL 19, 2011.