1. Appeal against acquittal for murder and cruelty under Sections 302 and 498A IPC following the death of a spouse by burning. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1052
1997(7) Supreme 311
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. Ray and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
State of Maharashtra -Appellant
versus
Ashok Chotelal Shukla -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 1988
Decided on 1-8-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : G.B. Sathe, Sr. Advocate and S.M. Jadhav, Advocate.
For the Respondent : M.S. Nargolkar, Sr. Advocate, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Naresh Kumar, Advocates.
For the Intervenor : Ms. Anita Sharma And Mukul Mudgal, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where the High Court on reappreciation of evidence reversed trial Court s Judgment of conviction, unless the view taken by High Court was so unreasonable, as to warrant interference, if would not be proper to interfere with order of acquittal only because on re-appreciation of evidence it is possible to take a different view.
Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498-A & 302-Trial court convicted respondent for offences under-High Court reversed judgment-Mother and sister of deceased went to accused s flat and found deceased burning in flames and was lying on floor of drawing room-High Court on re-appreciation of evidence found that it was a case of suicide and not homicide-Interference with order of acquittal-Not proper unless the view taken by High Court was so unreasonable as to warrant interference-Prosecution witnesses PW 9 & PW 10 were in the flat when incident of burning of deceased took place-It was very doubtful if respondent would have tried to burn his wife while outsiders were present in house-View of High Court could not be regarded unreasonable-Though conduct of respondent soon after incident was highly unusual, it did not lead to only conclusion that deceased had not committed suicide-High Court considered all those factors and gave good reasons for holding that it was not a case of homicide-Findings called for no interference. (Paras 26 to 28)
(ii) Indian Penal Code 1860-Section 498-A-Suicide by deceased-Prosecution has to prove that accused committed acts of harassment or cruelty which was reason for suicide-No evidence on that aspect-View taken by High Court could not be regarded as unreasonable-Acquittal called for no interference. (Para 29)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State contends evidence proves homicide and cruelty; respondent argues the High Court's finding of suicide and lack of cruelty is reasonable. (Para 24 , 25 )
3. The High Court's findings that the death was a suicide and that cruelty was not established are reasonable based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. An appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the view taken by the lower court is so unreasonable as to warrant interference. (Para 26 )
5. Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld. (Para 30 )
6. What is the standard for interfering with an acquittal in a case based on circumstantial evidence?
An appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the view taken by the lower court is so unreasonable as to warrant interference, even if a different view is possible upon re-appreciation of evidence. (Para 26 )
7. How does the presence of third parties influence the determination of homicide versus suicide in burning cases?
The presence of visitors in the house and the absence of evidence regarding struggle, screams, or audible exchanges can support a reasonable finding of suicide over homicide, as it is unlikely a defendant would commit murder while outsiders are present. (Para 27 )
8. What must the prosecution prove to secure a conviction under Section 498A IPC in suicide cases?
The prosecution must prove that the accused committed acts of harassment or cruelty as contemplated by Section 498A IPC and that such harassment or cruelty was the immediate cause of the suicide. (Para 29 )
9. Does the unusual conduct of an accused after a crime necessarily prove guilt?
Unusual conduct or failure to explain incriminating circumstances creates strong suspicion but does not lead to the sole conclusion of guilt if other reasonable hypotheses exist, such as the accused fearing false implication by in-laws. (Para 28 )
JUDGMENT
Nanavati, J.-This appeal, by the State of Maharashtra, is directed against the common judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court, in Confirmation Case No. 4 of 1986 and Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1986. The High Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No 585 of 1984 convicting the respondent under Section 498A IPC for subjecting his wife Vibha to cruelty and under Section 302 IPC for causing her death.
2. The respondent married Vibha on 29.5.1981. Vibha was the daughter of Chandrakant Shukla ...... uneducated person, who started his life as a salesman, but eventually switched over to business and in due course of time became an owner of 15 flour mills and 3 buildings. He had four daughters including Vibha. Vibha had studied upto first year B.Sc. Vibha s family was staying at Jogeshwari. At the time of his marriage the respondent was staying with his father Chotelal who was then an Assistant Commissioner of Police in Bombay. They were staying in a Government flat at Dadar. The respondent was then serving in a local concern. He had obtained some qualification in engineering from a foreign private institution. It was the prosecution case that the proposal had come from the respondent s side for the hand of Vibha and during further negotiations respondent s father had demanded dowry of Rs. 1,50,000. Ultimately, Chandrakant had agreed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as dowry inclusive of jewellery utensils and clothes. After their marriage the respondent and Vibha had started staying in a flat at Mulund which belonged to the respondent s father. Vibha s father Chandrakant was required to pay money for utensils, gas connection and other articles required for setting up respondent s home at Mulund. It was also the prosecution case that on the very first visit by the parents of Vibha to the respondent s father s flat at Dadar, the respondent s father had insulted Vibha s mother Pushpa. He considered it bellows his dignity and status to talk to the parents of Vibha as they were uneducated. The prosecution case further was that in September of October, 1981 the respondent decided to give up the job and set up a plastic factory of his own. He wanted Vibha s father to give money for that purpose. Vibha s father paid Rs. 20,000/- only. As he was required to obtain a loan from a bank he had asked Vibha s father to be a guarantor and also obtained his signatures on some loan papers. The respondent, however, did not invite him on the opening day of the factory; but, when he went on his own of the factory after about 10 days the respondent had told him that he needed more money to run his factory. Thereupon he had paid Rs. 30,000 to the respondent. That was in November or December, 1981.
3. Vibha was by that time pregnant so she went to her present s house at Jogeshwari in January, 1982 for delivery. She gave birth to a female child on 27.3.1982. She had to undergo a Caesarean operation. Even though the respondent and his parents were informed about the operation and birth of the female child none of them visited the hospital at the time of the operation. Even thereafter the parents of the respondent did not visit the hospital to inquire about the health of Vibha or to see the female child. None of them remained present on 7th April, 1982 the day on which her naming ceremony was performed. The female child was named Rachna. After about four or five days Rachna became ill and was admitted in a hospital for about 15 days. Only on the next day the respondent had gone to the hospital but his parents had not visited the hospital at all. In May, 1982 the respondent had visited Vibha s father s house at Jogeshwari and demanded Rs. 5, 000 as that amount was needed by him, Vibha s father had paid that amount. On the same day Vibha along with her daughter Rachna and sister Sushma had gone to Vibha s in-law s house at Dadar. Vibha was allowed to stay but the respondent had told Sushma to take Rachna back
