published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40515
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.937 OF 2006
S. ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR GANNA … APPELLANT
VERUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant
against the judgment dated 4th January, 2006 in Criminal
Appeal No.1042 of 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, whereby the
learned Single Judge reversed the judgment of acquittal
dated 2nd August, 1999 passed by the Xth Additional City
Sessions Judge at Bangalore in S.C.No.86 /96 and convicted
and sentenced the appellant for the offences under Section
304B and Section 498A of the IPC.Page 2
2
The Appellate Court imposed sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable
under Section 304B of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
The Appellate Court further ordered that the sentences
shall run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated below:
The complainantParasmal's sister Meena Kumari was
married to accused No.1, Anil Kumar on 13th December, 1990.
In relation to the said marriage a demand was made by
accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 for dowry of an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/ and gold weighing 800 gms. It was agreed by
the bride's party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ and 500 gms.
of gold as dowry and, accordingly, the marriage was
performed. After the marriage, Meena Kumari came to know
that her husband Anil Kumar, accused No.1 (appellant
herein) had developed illicit intimacy with accused No.2,
Sumithra alias Savitri, wife of Kailaschand, (PW8).
After some time, accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 began to treatPage 3
3
Meena Kumari with cruelty since she failed to bring the
amount demanded by accused No.1 for expansion of his
business. Whenever Meena Kumari came to her brother's
house, she complained about ill treatment meted out to her
by accused No.1. After some days, the amount demanded by
accused No.1 was given, but his demand did not subside. On
20th January, 1992 at about 7.00 a.m., Meena Kumari took
milk and went inside her house. After some time, accused
No.1, Anil Kumar left the house. Thereafter Meena Kumari
came out of the house and requested Smt. Kamalamma, a
neighbour to bring a nipple for putting the same to tap.
When Kamalamma brought the nipple, she found the door of
the house closed. Meena Kumari did not open the door in
spite of knocking by Kamalamma. At that time, Sarojamma,
(PW6) was also present. At about 9.00 a.m. the mother of
PW6, Kailas and Anil Kumar came and knocked the door, but
the door was not opened. Despite their efforts, door was
not opened and there was no response from inside.
Therefore, Anil Kumar put his hand through the ventilator
and unlatched the door and opened it. When they went
inside, they found that Meena Kumari had hanged herself
from the fan and had committed suicide. The news spreadPage 4
4
and later, a friend of the accused Sri Shanthilal (PW9)
came and he gave on phone a message to Meena Kumari's
elder brother S. Parasmal (PW1), who was residing in
Mysore. Intimation sent to him was that Meena Kumari was
seriously ill and they should come immediately. On their
way to Bangalore, Parasmal (PW1), learnt that Meena
Kumari had committed suicide. They reached the house of
the accused at about 5.00 p.m. and after ascertaining the
matter, Parasmal (PW1) went to the Police Station and
informed the Police. The Police came to the house and
after inspecting the spot, took the complaint of PW1. On
the basis of the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.33/92
against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Sri. M.V. Chengappa, PSI,
Hebbal Police Station (PW23) started with the
investigation and further investigation was taken up by,
Praveena, ACP, Yeshwanthpur SubDivision (PW24). The
investigation disclosed that accused Nos.3 to 5 were also
involved in the matter. Therefore, they were added in the
list of the accused. After further investigation by S.V.D.
Souza (PW25), Police Inspector, ADC, COD, Bangalore and
his successor, B. Venkataramana, Police Inspector, ADC,
COD, Bangalore (PW26) a chargesheet was placed againstPage 5
5
the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498
A and 304B of the IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges and
claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all 26
witnesses and closed its case. As per prosecution PWs1,
10,11,12,13,15 and 18 were examined with regard to the
payment of dowry. To substantiate the allegation of the
dowry harassment they examined PWs10,11,12,13,14,16 and
21 and other witnesses who saw the body hanging with fan.
PWs2, 7 and 19 were Panch witnesses. PW17, Dr.
Thirunavakkarasu was the Professor, Forensic Medicine, who
conducted the postmortem examination. PW21, was the
Taluk Executive Magistrate, who conducted inquest
proceedings. PWs.22 to 26 are the Police Officers.
4. The accused in their statements under 313 Cr.P.C.
denied the allegations made against them. On behalf of
defence one Vimal Kumar (DW1) was examined to show that
there was no demand for dowry and no harassment was made
to Meena Kumari. It was suggested on behalf of the defence
that Meena Kumari had extra affinity towards PW10, AshokPage 6
6
Kumar Jain and perhaps on the objection raised by the
accused she might have committed suicide.
5. The trial court on appreciation of evidence on record
came to hold that the statements of material witnesses,
PW1 and PW12 and some others are contradictory and there
statements are not trustworthy. In view of such finding
the trial court acquitted the accused of all the charges
levelled against them.
6. One of the reasons shown by the trial court to come to
the conclusion that the statements are not trustworthy,
was that PW1, complainant nowhere mentioned in the
complaint that demand of Rs.1,50,000/ in cash and 800
gms. of gold as dowry was made as precondition to marry
Meena Kumari. Such allegations were also not made before
the Tahsildar (PW.21), as evident from the observation of
the trial court:
“12.....It is an undisputed fact that
nowhere in the complaint Ex.P3, it is
mentioned that the accused persons demanded
Rs.1.5 lacks and 800 grams of gold as dowry
as a precondition to marry the deceased
Meenakumari. In the second para of the
complaint, Ex.P.3, it is mentioned that the
marriage was done as per their request and
that to their satisfaction. At the time of
marriage, they gave 500 grams of goldPage 7
7
ornaments and Rs.50,000/ cash and
household articles, further, nowhere in the
complaint Ex.P.3 any mentioned is made with
regard to the payment of Rs.10,000/ during
1991 to the first accused and subsequent
payment of Rs.25,000/ to the first accused
in the house of PW. at Mysore........ Now I
will see the crossexamination of PW.21,
the Tahsildar. He states that PW.1 has not
stated before him that the accused persons
demanded 800 grams of gold and Rs.1.50
lacks of as dowry. Likewise, PW.1 has not
stated before him that the first accused
and his family members participated in the
marriage talks. He admits that PW.10 stated
before him vide Ex.D.2. He admits that PW.1
has not stated before him that the third
accused sent deceased Meenakumari to bring
the balance of Rs.1.00 lack and 300 grams
of gold. Likewise PW.1 has not stated
before him that he gave Rs.10,000/ to
accused Nos.1 and 3 and sent deceased
Meenakumari. He also admits that PW.1 has
not stated before him that PW.1 went to
Devgarh and requested accused No.3 to send
Meenakumari with him for which he refused.
He also states that PW.1 has not stated
before him that he sent his brother
Sampathlal to bring Meenakumari and that he
brought her to his house at Mysore in June,
1991. Likewise, he has also not stated that
the first accused did not take back
Meenakumari to his house and therefore she
stayed in her house for about 2 ½ months,
PW.1 has not stated before PW.21 that
Meenakumari was telling before him that she
was insulted by her inlaws for having not
taken the dowry articles. It is also
admitted by PW.21 Tahsildar that PW.1 has
not stated before him during November,
1991, accused Nos.1 and 2 and one
Sampathlal came to his house and his father
PW.22 gave Rs.25,000/ to the first
accused. PW.21 also states that PW.1
Parasmal has not specifically stated phone
that the second accused was illtreating
her. PW.10 also not stated before PW.21 thePage 8
8
Tahsildar on 13.01.1992. He sent Mohanlal
to Bangalore to see Meenakumari and that in
turn they told him about the harassment
given to her by the first accused. PW.21
also states that PW.18 A. Suresh Jain has
not stated before him that deceased
Meenakumari came to Mysore six months after
the marriage and stayed in the house of
PW.1 for about 1 ½ months and that she
complained of harassment by her inlaws for
the same of dowry.
13. From the evidence of PW21 the
Tahsildar it is crystal clear that at no
point of time, either PW1 or as matter of
fact, this PW18 never stated that the
accused persons made a demand for Rs.1.5
lakhs and 800 grams of gold as dowry.
Likewise, whatever PW1 states in the chief
examination are all omissions which were not
stated before PW21 the Tahsildar
immediately after this incident. Absolutely
there is no substance in PWs1 and 12
telling that they paid Rs.10,000/ at Benali
and Rs.25,000/ in the house of PW1 at
Mysore to the first accused”
7. The High Court relied substantially on the submission
made by the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the
prosecution who stated that there are abundant material
placed on the record by the prosecution including
depositions of PWs1,10 to 16 and 21, many of whom spoke
about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and dowry
harassment. It was contended that the learned Sessions
Judge because of minor discrepancies in the statements of
the prosecution witnesses has given the benefit of doubtPage 9
9
in acquitting all the accused. The Sessions Judge had not
considered the provisions of Sections 113A and 113B of
the Evidence Act to be drawn against the accused. In view
of such argument, the Appellate Court reappreciated the
evidence and observed as follows:
“8.Though it is submitted by the learned
Addl.SPP that there is abundant material
regarding demand for dowry and payment of
dowry for the settlement of marriage, on
perusal of the depositions of
PWs.1,10,11,12,13,15 and 18, we are unable
to agree with his view. It is an admitted
fact that an amount of Rs.50,000/ and gold
ornaments weighing about 500 gms were given
at the time of marriage. The evidence is
not sufficient to raise a presumption that
this payment of money as dowry was on
demand by the accused nos.1 and 3 to 5. As
rightly observed by the learned Sessions
Judge, they appear to be customary presents
given from the bride's side.”
Again on reappreciation of evidence of
PWs.1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 21, the Appellate Court
while holding that it was unable to find the allegations
involve accused Nos.2 to 5 observed as follows:
“9.........It is not the case of the
prosecution that from those distant places
the accused Nos.3 to 5 tutored accused No.1
to demand dowry or illtreat Meena Kumari.
Therefore, we do not find sufficient ground
to interfere in the conclusion of the
learned Sessions Judge with regard to thePage 10
10
demand for dowry payment of dowry and dowry
harassment so far as the allegations relate
to accused Nos.3 to 5.”
8. So far as accused No.2 is concerned she being a
neighbour's wife the trial court held that she cannot be
held responsible for any demand of dowry or dowry
harassment. The trial court acquitted all the accused No.1
to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 3,4 and 6 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act and accused Nos.2 to 5 for an
offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC with the
following observation:
“10.....Of course, a suggestion has been
made that as informed by Meena Kumari, there
was illicit relationship between the accused
nos.1 and 2. But this has not been
substantiated by any material. Merely
because some witness says that they learned
from Meena Kumari that there was illicit
relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 and
of that it was the cause for marital discord
between accused nos.1 and Meena Kumari, that
cannot be accepted. Considering all these
materials, we hold that the acquittal of
accused nos. 1 to 5 for offences punishable
under Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and accused nos.2 to 5 for
an offences punishable under Sections 498A
of the IPC does not need interference.”Page 11
11
9. In spite of such finding referring to the statements
made by PWs.1,10 to 16 and 21 the Appellate Court held
that accused No.1appellant herein is liable to be
convicted for the offences for dowry harassment and dowry
death and made the following observations:
“The learned Sessions Judge lost sight of
the presumption that is available in
Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act
and ignoring the evidence of PWs.1, 10 to 16
and 21, held that there was no dowry
harassment, so far as the allegation relates
to the accused no.1. We find absolutely no
reason to discard the evidence of these
witnesses so far as the allegations relate
to the accused no.1 and consequently he is
liable to be convicted for the offences
under Sections 498A, 304B of the IPC.
Since the dowry harassment by the accused
nos.2 to 5 has not been proved, the
acquittal granted to them does not need any
interference.”
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if
one view has been taken by the trial court which is not
perverse, it was not open to the Appellate Court to
substitute such view to reappreciate the evidence for
coming to a different conclusion.
11. Per contra, according to the learned counsel for the
State, the High Court was right in reversing the judgmentPage 12
12
of acquittal passed by the trial court in view of
sufficient evidence of PWs.10 to 16 and 21 recorded to
show that the appellant has subjected deceased to
harassment due to which she was compelled to commit
suicide.
12. This Court in the case of Rohtash vs. State of
Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589, held that only in exceptional
cases where there are compelling circumstances and where
the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the High
Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. In the
said case the following observation was made by this
Court:
“27. The High Court interfered with the
order of acquittal recorded by the trial
court. The law of interfering with the
judgment of acquittal is well settled.
It is to the effect that only in
exceptional cases where there are
compelling circumstances and the
judgment in appeal is found to be
perverse, the appellate court can
interfere with the order of the
acquittal. The appellate court should
bear in mind the presumption of
innocence of the accused and further
that the trial court’s acquittal
bolsters the presumption of innocence.
Interference in a routine manner where
the other view is possible should bePage 13
13
avoided, unless there are good reasons
for interference.”
13. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses PWs.1, 10 to 16 and 21 relied on by the
prosecution.
We find that there are contradictory
statements which cannot be stated to be a minor
contradiction as was suggested by the learned Addl.SSP
before the Appellate Court.
The improvement in the
statements of PW.1 and 12 is clear.
The allegation about
the demand of dowry of Rs.1,50,000/ and 800 gms. of gold
ornaments and harassment and torture made by accused No.1
on deceased was not disclosed and mentioned in the First
Information Report or before the Tahsildar(PW.21) who
recorded the initial evidence.
In Ex.P.2 and complaint
Ex.P.3 absolutely there is no evidence to show that
Rs.25, 000/ was demanded and Rs.10,000/ was given to
accused No.1 either at Benali or at Mysore. Further,
payment of Rs.50,000/ and 500 gms. of gold to accused
No.1 as dowry was also not established beyond reasonable
doubt.
Page 14
14
14. Once the prosecution failed to prove the basic
ingredients of harassment or demand of dowry and the
evidence brought on record were doubted by the trial
court,
it was not open to the High Court to convict
accused No.1 on presumption referring to Section 113A or
113B of the Evidence Act.
The presumption of innocence
of the accused being primary factor, in absence of
exceptional compelling circumstances and perversity of the
judgment,
it was not open to the High Court to interfere
with the judgment of the trial court in a routine manner.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned
judgment dated 4th January, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1042
of 1999 passed by the High Court, allow the appeal by
restoring the judgment dated 2nd August, 1999 of the trial
court. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand
discharged.
…………………......…………………………….J.
(A.K. PATNAIK)
.......……………………………………………….J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 3, 2013.
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.937 OF 2006
S. ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR GANNA … APPELLANT
VERUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant
against the judgment dated 4th January, 2006 in Criminal
Appeal No.1042 of 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, whereby the
learned Single Judge reversed the judgment of acquittal
dated 2nd August, 1999 passed by the Xth Additional City
Sessions Judge at Bangalore in S.C.No.86 /96 and convicted
and sentenced the appellant for the offences under Section
304B and Section 498A of the IPC.Page 2
2
The Appellate Court imposed sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable
under Section 304B of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
The Appellate Court further ordered that the sentences
shall run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated below:
The complainantParasmal's sister Meena Kumari was
married to accused No.1, Anil Kumar on 13th December, 1990.
In relation to the said marriage a demand was made by
accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 for dowry of an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/ and gold weighing 800 gms. It was agreed by
the bride's party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ and 500 gms.
of gold as dowry and, accordingly, the marriage was
performed. After the marriage, Meena Kumari came to know
that her husband Anil Kumar, accused No.1 (appellant
herein) had developed illicit intimacy with accused No.2,
Sumithra alias Savitri, wife of Kailaschand, (PW8).
After some time, accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 began to treatPage 3
3
Meena Kumari with cruelty since she failed to bring the
amount demanded by accused No.1 for expansion of his
business. Whenever Meena Kumari came to her brother's
house, she complained about ill treatment meted out to her
by accused No.1. After some days, the amount demanded by
accused No.1 was given, but his demand did not subside. On
20th January, 1992 at about 7.00 a.m., Meena Kumari took
milk and went inside her house. After some time, accused
No.1, Anil Kumar left the house. Thereafter Meena Kumari
came out of the house and requested Smt. Kamalamma, a
neighbour to bring a nipple for putting the same to tap.
When Kamalamma brought the nipple, she found the door of
the house closed. Meena Kumari did not open the door in
spite of knocking by Kamalamma. At that time, Sarojamma,
(PW6) was also present. At about 9.00 a.m. the mother of
PW6, Kailas and Anil Kumar came and knocked the door, but
the door was not opened. Despite their efforts, door was
not opened and there was no response from inside.
Therefore, Anil Kumar put his hand through the ventilator
and unlatched the door and opened it. When they went
inside, they found that Meena Kumari had hanged herself
from the fan and had committed suicide. The news spreadPage 4
4
and later, a friend of the accused Sri Shanthilal (PW9)
came and he gave on phone a message to Meena Kumari's
elder brother S. Parasmal (PW1), who was residing in
Mysore. Intimation sent to him was that Meena Kumari was
seriously ill and they should come immediately. On their
way to Bangalore, Parasmal (PW1), learnt that Meena
Kumari had committed suicide. They reached the house of
the accused at about 5.00 p.m. and after ascertaining the
matter, Parasmal (PW1) went to the Police Station and
informed the Police. The Police came to the house and
after inspecting the spot, took the complaint of PW1. On
the basis of the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.33/92
against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Sri. M.V. Chengappa, PSI,
Hebbal Police Station (PW23) started with the
investigation and further investigation was taken up by,
Praveena, ACP, Yeshwanthpur SubDivision (PW24). The
investigation disclosed that accused Nos.3 to 5 were also
involved in the matter. Therefore, they were added in the
list of the accused. After further investigation by S.V.D.
Souza (PW25), Police Inspector, ADC, COD, Bangalore and
his successor, B. Venkataramana, Police Inspector, ADC,
COD, Bangalore (PW26) a chargesheet was placed againstPage 5
5
the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498
A and 304B of the IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges and
claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all 26
witnesses and closed its case. As per prosecution PWs1,
10,11,12,13,15 and 18 were examined with regard to the
payment of dowry. To substantiate the allegation of the
dowry harassment they examined PWs10,11,12,13,14,16 and
21 and other witnesses who saw the body hanging with fan.
PWs2, 7 and 19 were Panch witnesses. PW17, Dr.
Thirunavakkarasu was the Professor, Forensic Medicine, who
conducted the postmortem examination. PW21, was the
Taluk Executive Magistrate, who conducted inquest
proceedings. PWs.22 to 26 are the Police Officers.
4. The accused in their statements under 313 Cr.P.C.
denied the allegations made against them. On behalf of
defence one Vimal Kumar (DW1) was examined to show that
there was no demand for dowry and no harassment was made
to Meena Kumari. It was suggested on behalf of the defence
that Meena Kumari had extra affinity towards PW10, AshokPage 6
6
Kumar Jain and perhaps on the objection raised by the
accused she might have committed suicide.
5. The trial court on appreciation of evidence on record
came to hold that the statements of material witnesses,
PW1 and PW12 and some others are contradictory and there
statements are not trustworthy. In view of such finding
the trial court acquitted the accused of all the charges
levelled against them.
6. One of the reasons shown by the trial court to come to
the conclusion that the statements are not trustworthy,
was that PW1, complainant nowhere mentioned in the
complaint that demand of Rs.1,50,000/ in cash and 800
gms. of gold as dowry was made as precondition to marry
Meena Kumari. Such allegations were also not made before
the Tahsildar (PW.21), as evident from the observation of
the trial court:
“12.....It is an undisputed fact that
nowhere in the complaint Ex.P3, it is
mentioned that the accused persons demanded
Rs.1.5 lacks and 800 grams of gold as dowry
as a precondition to marry the deceased
Meenakumari. In the second para of the
complaint, Ex.P.3, it is mentioned that the
marriage was done as per their request and
that to their satisfaction. At the time of
marriage, they gave 500 grams of goldPage 7
7
ornaments and Rs.50,000/ cash and
household articles, further, nowhere in the
complaint Ex.P.3 any mentioned is made with
regard to the payment of Rs.10,000/ during
1991 to the first accused and subsequent
payment of Rs.25,000/ to the first accused
in the house of PW. at Mysore........ Now I
will see the crossexamination of PW.21,
the Tahsildar. He states that PW.1 has not
stated before him that the accused persons
demanded 800 grams of gold and Rs.1.50
lacks of as dowry. Likewise, PW.1 has not
stated before him that the first accused
and his family members participated in the
marriage talks. He admits that PW.10 stated
before him vide Ex.D.2. He admits that PW.1
has not stated before him that the third
accused sent deceased Meenakumari to bring
the balance of Rs.1.00 lack and 300 grams
of gold. Likewise PW.1 has not stated
before him that he gave Rs.10,000/ to
accused Nos.1 and 3 and sent deceased
Meenakumari. He also admits that PW.1 has
not stated before him that PW.1 went to
Devgarh and requested accused No.3 to send
Meenakumari with him for which he refused.
He also states that PW.1 has not stated
before him that he sent his brother
Sampathlal to bring Meenakumari and that he
brought her to his house at Mysore in June,
1991. Likewise, he has also not stated that
the first accused did not take back
Meenakumari to his house and therefore she
stayed in her house for about 2 ½ months,
PW.1 has not stated before PW.21 that
Meenakumari was telling before him that she
was insulted by her inlaws for having not
taken the dowry articles. It is also
admitted by PW.21 Tahsildar that PW.1 has
not stated before him during November,
1991, accused Nos.1 and 2 and one
Sampathlal came to his house and his father
PW.22 gave Rs.25,000/ to the first
accused. PW.21 also states that PW.1
Parasmal has not specifically stated phone
that the second accused was illtreating
her. PW.10 also not stated before PW.21 thePage 8
8
Tahsildar on 13.01.1992. He sent Mohanlal
to Bangalore to see Meenakumari and that in
turn they told him about the harassment
given to her by the first accused. PW.21
also states that PW.18 A. Suresh Jain has
not stated before him that deceased
Meenakumari came to Mysore six months after
the marriage and stayed in the house of
PW.1 for about 1 ½ months and that she
complained of harassment by her inlaws for
the same of dowry.
13. From the evidence of PW21 the
Tahsildar it is crystal clear that at no
point of time, either PW1 or as matter of
fact, this PW18 never stated that the
accused persons made a demand for Rs.1.5
lakhs and 800 grams of gold as dowry.
Likewise, whatever PW1 states in the chief
examination are all omissions which were not
stated before PW21 the Tahsildar
immediately after this incident. Absolutely
there is no substance in PWs1 and 12
telling that they paid Rs.10,000/ at Benali
and Rs.25,000/ in the house of PW1 at
Mysore to the first accused”
7. The High Court relied substantially on the submission
made by the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the
prosecution who stated that there are abundant material
placed on the record by the prosecution including
depositions of PWs1,10 to 16 and 21, many of whom spoke
about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and dowry
harassment. It was contended that the learned Sessions
Judge because of minor discrepancies in the statements of
the prosecution witnesses has given the benefit of doubtPage 9
9
in acquitting all the accused. The Sessions Judge had not
considered the provisions of Sections 113A and 113B of
the Evidence Act to be drawn against the accused. In view
of such argument, the Appellate Court reappreciated the
evidence and observed as follows:
“8.Though it is submitted by the learned
Addl.SPP that there is abundant material
regarding demand for dowry and payment of
dowry for the settlement of marriage, on
perusal of the depositions of
PWs.1,10,11,12,13,15 and 18, we are unable
to agree with his view. It is an admitted
fact that an amount of Rs.50,000/ and gold
ornaments weighing about 500 gms were given
at the time of marriage. The evidence is
not sufficient to raise a presumption that
this payment of money as dowry was on
demand by the accused nos.1 and 3 to 5. As
rightly observed by the learned Sessions
Judge, they appear to be customary presents
given from the bride's side.”
Again on reappreciation of evidence of
PWs.1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 21, the Appellate Court
while holding that it was unable to find the allegations
involve accused Nos.2 to 5 observed as follows:
“9.........It is not the case of the
prosecution that from those distant places
the accused Nos.3 to 5 tutored accused No.1
to demand dowry or illtreat Meena Kumari.
Therefore, we do not find sufficient ground
to interfere in the conclusion of the
learned Sessions Judge with regard to thePage 10
10
demand for dowry payment of dowry and dowry
harassment so far as the allegations relate
to accused Nos.3 to 5.”
8. So far as accused No.2 is concerned she being a
neighbour's wife the trial court held that she cannot be
held responsible for any demand of dowry or dowry
harassment. The trial court acquitted all the accused No.1
to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 3,4 and 6 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act and accused Nos.2 to 5 for an
offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC with the
following observation:
“10.....Of course, a suggestion has been
made that as informed by Meena Kumari, there
was illicit relationship between the accused
nos.1 and 2. But this has not been
substantiated by any material. Merely
because some witness says that they learned
from Meena Kumari that there was illicit
relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 and
of that it was the cause for marital discord
between accused nos.1 and Meena Kumari, that
cannot be accepted. Considering all these
materials, we hold that the acquittal of
accused nos. 1 to 5 for offences punishable
under Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and accused nos.2 to 5 for
an offences punishable under Sections 498A
of the IPC does not need interference.”Page 11
11
9. In spite of such finding referring to the statements
made by PWs.1,10 to 16 and 21 the Appellate Court held
that accused No.1appellant herein is liable to be
convicted for the offences for dowry harassment and dowry
death and made the following observations:
“The learned Sessions Judge lost sight of
the presumption that is available in
Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act
and ignoring the evidence of PWs.1, 10 to 16
and 21, held that there was no dowry
harassment, so far as the allegation relates
to the accused no.1. We find absolutely no
reason to discard the evidence of these
witnesses so far as the allegations relate
to the accused no.1 and consequently he is
liable to be convicted for the offences
under Sections 498A, 304B of the IPC.
Since the dowry harassment by the accused
nos.2 to 5 has not been proved, the
acquittal granted to them does not need any
interference.”
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if
one view has been taken by the trial court which is not
perverse, it was not open to the Appellate Court to
substitute such view to reappreciate the evidence for
coming to a different conclusion.
11. Per contra, according to the learned counsel for the
State, the High Court was right in reversing the judgmentPage 12
12
of acquittal passed by the trial court in view of
sufficient evidence of PWs.10 to 16 and 21 recorded to
show that the appellant has subjected deceased to
harassment due to which she was compelled to commit
suicide.
12. This Court in the case of Rohtash vs. State of
Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589, held that only in exceptional
cases where there are compelling circumstances and where
the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the High
Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. In the
said case the following observation was made by this
Court:
“27. The High Court interfered with the
order of acquittal recorded by the trial
court. The law of interfering with the
judgment of acquittal is well settled.
It is to the effect that only in
exceptional cases where there are
compelling circumstances and the
judgment in appeal is found to be
perverse, the appellate court can
interfere with the order of the
acquittal. The appellate court should
bear in mind the presumption of
innocence of the accused and further
that the trial court’s acquittal
bolsters the presumption of innocence.
Interference in a routine manner where
the other view is possible should bePage 13
13
avoided, unless there are good reasons
for interference.”
13. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses PWs.1, 10 to 16 and 21 relied on by the
prosecution.
We find that there are contradictory
statements which cannot be stated to be a minor
contradiction as was suggested by the learned Addl.SSP
before the Appellate Court.
The improvement in the
statements of PW.1 and 12 is clear.
The allegation about
the demand of dowry of Rs.1,50,000/ and 800 gms. of gold
ornaments and harassment and torture made by accused No.1
on deceased was not disclosed and mentioned in the First
Information Report or before the Tahsildar(PW.21) who
recorded the initial evidence.
In Ex.P.2 and complaint
Ex.P.3 absolutely there is no evidence to show that
Rs.25, 000/ was demanded and Rs.10,000/ was given to
accused No.1 either at Benali or at Mysore. Further,
payment of Rs.50,000/ and 500 gms. of gold to accused
No.1 as dowry was also not established beyond reasonable
doubt.
Page 14
14
14. Once the prosecution failed to prove the basic
ingredients of harassment or demand of dowry and the
evidence brought on record were doubted by the trial
court,
it was not open to the High Court to convict
accused No.1 on presumption referring to Section 113A or
113B of the Evidence Act.
The presumption of innocence
of the accused being primary factor, in absence of
exceptional compelling circumstances and perversity of the
judgment,
it was not open to the High Court to interfere
with the judgment of the trial court in a routine manner.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned
judgment dated 4th January, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1042
of 1999 passed by the High Court, allow the appeal by
restoring the judgment dated 2nd August, 1999 of the trial
court. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand
discharged.
…………………......…………………………….J.
(A.K. PATNAIK)
.......……………………………………………….J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 3, 2013.
