2008 Supreme(SC) 1277

2008(6) Supreme 283
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam, JJ.
B. Venkat Swamy — Appellant
versus
Vijaya Nehru and Anr. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2001
Decided on : 25-08-08

Important Point
Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A and 302 – Dowry Prohibition Act – Section 4 – Prosecution of respondent1 husband and his mother for meting out cruelty to deceased for unfulfilled dowry demand and for causing her death by hanging her from ceiling fan – Trial Court while convicting respondent1 under Sections 498A, 302 IPC and Section 4 of DP Act, acquitted his mother of said charges – High Court on appeal directed acquittal of respondent1 – Appeal – Instantly High Court noted several factors to hold that prosecution failed to establish Accusations – Evidence of PW 1 showed that door of room where dead body was found was bolted from inside – Undisputedly, A1 was not inside – Evidence on record showed variance in evidence of doctor who earlier gave opinion that deceased died due to asphyxia resulting from hanging but later on stated that deceased died because of smothering and dead body was hanged – PW1 in his evidence stated that when they asked respondent as to why he was demanding gold and motorcycle, he said that he had never asked anything – However in the cross-examination PW1 categorically admitted that deceased never personally informed him about alleged harassment by Respondent – PW1 also accepted in his cross-examination that he presumed that respondent-accused had killed deceased – Failure on part of prosecution to lead evidence as to where respondent and deceased slept on 26/27 i.e. the intervening night – Finding of Trial Court that it was absurd that respondent-accused went out to a long distance wearing only banian and underwear – Examination in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. appeared to have been done as an empty formality – The incriminating materials were not put to accused – Though High Court had not dealt with question of applicability of Section 498 IPC and Section 4 of DP Act, but evidence adduced did not establish accusations – Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 18 to 20)

       Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person – The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. (Para 9)

       (1977 SC 1063); (AIR 1956 SC 316); (AIR 1983 SC 446); (AIR 1985 SC 1224); (AIR 1987 SC 350); (AIR 1989 SC 1890), (AIR 1954 SC 621) – Relied upon.

       Facts of the Case :

       1.Respondent1 accused husband and his mother were prosecuted herein in the instant case for meting out cruelty to deceased for unfulfilled dowry demand and for causing her death by hanging her from ceiling fan.Trial Court while convicting respondent1under Sections 498A, 302 IPC and Section 4 of DP Act, acquitted his mother of said charges. High Court on appeal directed acquittal of respondent1.

       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of acquittal passed by High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       Instantly High Court noted several factors to hold that prosecution failed to establish Accusations. Evidence of PW 1 showed that door of room where dead body was found was bolted from inside. Undisputedly, A1 was not inside. Evidence on record showed variance in evidence of doctor who earlier gave opinion that deceased died due to asphyxia resulting from hanging but later on stated that deceased died because of smothering and dead body was hanged. PW1 in his evidence stated that when they asked respondent as to why he was demanding gold and motorcycle, he said that he had never asked anything. However in the cross-examination PW1 categorically admitted that deceased never personally informed him about alleged harassment by Respondent. PW1also accepted in his cross-examination that he presumed that respondent-accused had killed deceased. Prosecution failed to lead evidence as to where respondent and deceased slept on 26/27 i.e. the intervening night. Trial Court held that it was absurd that respondent-accused went out to a long distance wearing only banian and underwear .Examination in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. appeared to have been done as an empty formality. The incriminating materials were not put to accused. Though High Court had not dealt with question of applicability of Section 498 IPC and Section 4 of DP Act, but evidence adduced did not establish accusations.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.