Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE B. C. RAY AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 486-487 of 1984
STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD
Versus
DILIP NATHUMAL CHORDIA AND ANOTHER.
With Criminal Appeals Nos. 488-489 of 1984
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Versus
DILIP NATHUMAL.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 486-487 and 488-489 of 1984, decided on February 8, 1989
Advocates appeared
M. C. Bhandare, Senior Advocate (A. M. Khanwilkar and Ms H. Wahi, Advocates, with him), for the Appellants ;
S. B. Bhasme, Senior Advocate (R. A. Gupta, Advocate, with him), for the Respondents.
14. 1976 Cr. L.J. 1142.
Held: Self restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring Injustice.
Further held: Section 227 which confers power to discharge an accused was designed to prevent harassment to an innocent person by the arduous trial or the ordeal of prosecution. How that intention is to be achieved is reasonably clear in the section itself. The power has been entrusted to the Sessions Judge who brings to bear his knowledge and experience in criminal trials. Besides, he has the assistance of counsel for the accused and Public Prosecutor. He is required to hear both sides before framing any charge against the accused or for discharging him. If the Sessions Judge after hearing the parties frames a charge and also makes an order in support thereof, the law must be allowed to take its own course. Self restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice stares the Court in the face. The opinion on any matter may differ depending upon the person who views it. There may be as many opinions on a particular matter as there are courts but it is no ground for the High Court to interdict the trial. It would be better for the High Court to allow the trial to proceed. (Para 17)
(ii) Criminal Procedure Cod-e, 1973 Section 227-Discharge - Scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused-The ground in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial-All that the Court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. (Para 12)
(iii) Crime against Women - Unfortunate death of young ladies-Allegation of dowry as the cause-It is not enough if the legal order with sanction alone moves forward for protection of women and preservation of societal values-Criminal justice system must equally respond to the needs investigating agency must display a live concern and collect all the evidence - The Court must also display greater sensitivity to admiralty and avoid on all counts "soft justice". (concerned legislation discussed). (Paras 14 and 15)
(iv) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 - Dowry death - Criminal prosecution - Order of discharge of father-in-law - Challenged - Whether it is sufficient to frame a charge against him merely because he being the manager of the family should have safeguarded her rights? - (No, though he has failed to perform his moral obligation, that by itself is not sufficient to frame a charge against him - Discretion exercised by the trial court cannot be interfered with). (Para 18)
(v) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 227 and 228 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appellant was charged for the offence under - Charge quashed by High Court – Appeal Death by burning - Allegation of demand of dowry - Kerosene residue was found on each and every garment of the deceased - Post-mortem report indicates contusions on the back shoulders, besides burn injuries - The events preceding the death of deceased, not considered Conduct of the accused, highlighted in the context and circumstances, ignored by the High Court-Order of discharge is liable to be set aside. (Paras 13 and 19)
JUDGMENT
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.—These four appeals, by leave, arise out of the common judgment of Bombay High Court dated April 5, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 166 and 234 of 1983. Criminal Appeal Nos. 486 and 487 of 1984 have been preferred by an organisation called "Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad". It is an association committed to prevent atrocities on women. Criminal Appeal Nos. 488 and 489 of 1984 are by the State of Maharashtra.
2. The case relates to the death of a newly married girl called Chanda. On June 15, 1981, Chanda was married to Ramesh. The elder brother of Ramesh is called Dilip and Nathumal is their father. The marriage of Ramesh and Chanda took place at Nerparsopant, District Yavatmal.
3. On the next day of the marriage, the bride and groom returned to the house of the latter at Arvi. On June 19, 1981, they had gone to Amravati to have prayers in the Devi Temple. They came back in the same evening. The day following was a fateful day. At about 2.30 p.m. on June 20, 1981, Chanda was seen with flames on the first floor of the residential building, frantically crying for help. That attracted some of the neighbours from the ground floor. They rushed to rescue Chanda. Three of them are : Bhanrao, Ballu alias Nandu and Ramdas. They extinguished the flame which was practically engulfing Chanda. The inmates in the house, however, did not render any such help. Dilip who was on the first floor was seen coming down the stairs. Shortly thereafter two doctors came and the police also arrived. Chanda was taken to Ervin Hospital at Amravati in an unconscious condition. She died in the hospital at about 9 p.m. on the same day. Before the death, her dying declaration was said to have been recorded by the Executive Magistrate. It was stated therein that when she was preparing tea in the kitchen, her saree caught fire accidentally and consequently she received the burn injuries.
4. The parents of Chanda were informed of the death. They suspected foul play by the in-laws of Chanda. They lodged a report at Amravati Police Station complaining that Chandas death might have been the outcome of tension due to demand of dowry. The Crime Branch of the CID investigated the case and charge-sheeted Dilip and Nathumal under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. It was alleged that Chanda had committed suicide by burning herself and Dilip and Nathumal abetted her.
5. An investigation of the case revealed that Chanda had hostile atmosphere soon after her marriage. She was not treated well in her husbands house. Vijay, her brother and Mani Chand, father have given statements that the in-laws demanded unreasonable dowry which could not be complied with. Even at the wedding ceremony, it seems, that they behaved badly on the payment of insufficient dowry. After the marriage, when Vijay came to take his sister back home as per custom, he was not even permitted to meet her. Kamala Bai, the maid servant accompanying Chanda was also sent back. She has also given detailed version about the unfavourable atmosphere around Chanda.
6. In addition to the statements of witnesses, there is a report of the Chemical Analyser and post-mortem report. These indicate that the death of Chanda could not be by accidental fire.
7. The trial court after considering all the facts and circumstances appearing on record and after hearing the counsel for accused and Public Prosecutor was of prima facie opinion that it was not a suicide but homicidal death. Accordingly, the charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against Dilip. Nathumal, however, was discharged holding that the allegations against him do not justify the framing of any charge.
8. There were two revision applications before the High Court of Bombay. The State filed a revision challenging the validity of discharge of Nathumal. Dilip on his part questioned the correctness of the charge framed against him and demanded his discharge also. The High Court dismissed the revision preferred by the State whi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
