Crl.A. No. 450 of 2007 1

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.