IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because the appellant is acquitted u/s 302 IPC the presumption u/s 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 does not stand automatically rebutted.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 304B-Offences of murder and dowry death-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 113B-Presumption of dowry death-Appellant acquitted under Section 302 IPC-Whether presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act stands rebutted? (No)-Conviction under Section 304B IPC upheld-Appeal dismissed-(Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal under).
Held : In an Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution this Court will not re-appreciate and/or re-appraise the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion, unless it is shown that the Courts below have not taken into consideration some relevant facts or have not appreciated the evidence in a correct perspective or this Court finds serious infirmities in the findings of the Courts below. In our view, both the Courts below have correctly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 to come to the conclusion that there had been demands for dowry. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are independent witnesses. P.W. 6 is a friend of the family of the Appellant also. Therefore, there is no reason why he would give false evidence. We therefore find no flaw or fallacy in the reasoning adopted by the Courts below. We also see no substance in the submission that merely because the Appellant had been acquitted under Section 302 I.P.C. the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act stands automatically rebutted. The death having taken place within seven years of the marriage and there being sufficient evidence of demand of dowry, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act gets invoked. There is no evidence in rebuttal. We therefore see no reason to interfere. The Appeal stands dismissed. (Paras 15, 16 and 17)

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 25th April, 2001 by which the High Court has confirmed the conviction, by the learned Sessions Judge, under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

The Appellant got married to Dr. Anjum Ara on 31st May, 1994. On 14th February, 1995, the Dispur Police Station received a telephonic message from one Dr. Kalpana Sharma (P.W. 1) that a woman had died under suspicious circumstances. On the basis of this information a diary entry was made. The police then went to the place of occurrence. There they found Dr. Anjum Ara lying dead on the bed. The father of the deceased, who is the Sub Divisional Officer, was informed telephonically about the death.

3. The police initially arrested the Appellant (who is the husband of the deceased) as well as one Bhaskar Ali (P.W. 3), who was a servant in the house. The father of the deceased gave information, which is treated as FIR, that his daughter had reportedly committed suicide "by hanging inside the bathroom". The diary entry dated 15th February, 1995 records that the father of the deceased had informed in writing that he does not have any suspicion and that it was purely a case of suicide. The diary entry records that after post-mortem, the body would be taken to their home town Gopalgunj and that he (i.e. the father-in-law) would take his son-in-law also with them.

4. During post-mortem examination, the Doctor (P.W. 8) found the following injuries:

"Injuries

(1) Abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm size present at 2 cm above the tip of nose and 5 cm left to midline.

(2) Abrasion 7 cm x 3 cm size on front of lower end of left ear 1 cm below the tragus (projecting part of ear).

(3) Contusion 7 cm x 5 cm size present just below the lower jaw 4 cm right to midline.

(4) Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm size present at 1.5 cm below the mid point of chin.

(5) Abrasion 1 cm x 5 cm in size present at 1 cm below the lower jaw at 1.5 cm right to midline.

(6) Contusion 2 cm x 1.5 cm in size present on lower border of lower jaw 4 cm left to midline.

(7) Bite mark oval in shape 3.5 cm x 2 cm size on back of left forearm 2 cm above wrist joint at middle.

(8) Bite mark oval in shape 4 cm x 3 cm in size on back of right forearm 1.5 cm above the wrist joint at middle.

(9) Abrasion 1.5 cm x .5 cm in size on the back of right elbow joint on ulnar side.

(10) Contusion 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm size on outer aspect of right arm 8 cm above lateral epicundile (on elbow).

(11) Contusion 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm size on front of left leg just above the patella ... at middle.

(12) Contusion 4 cm x 1.5 cm size on inner side of right knee joint 1 cm below the patella.

(13) Scratch abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm size on the outer aspect of left wrist joint 1 cm above the styloid process of left radius.

(14) Bite marks oval in shape 2 cm x 3 cm in size on outer aspect of right forearm 2 cm above the styloid process of radius of right hand.

All the contusions were read in colour.

(15) One oblique and non continuous ligature mark measuring 25 cm in length and 1.5 cm in breadth present high up on the neck. In front the ligature mark touches just above the thyroid prominance at midline and on left side ligature mark, extends upto 3 point 1 cm below the lower end of left ear lebula and on the right side the upper end of ligature mark extends upto the midline 4 cm below the occiput. The upper border of ligature mark on right side shows grazed abrasions .5 to 1 cm wide directing upwards and backwards."

5. The Doctor opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. The Doctor opined that the injuries were not self inflicted or accidental.

6. After receipt of the post-mortem report on 22nd Februar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1285

IMPORTANT POINTMerely because the appellant is acquitted u/s 302 IPC the presumption u/s 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 does not stand automatically rebutted.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because the appellant is acquitted u/s 302 IPC the presumption u/s 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 does not stand automatically rebutted.