SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 934

2009(4) Supreme 101
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Narendra — Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1502 of 2007
Decided on : 05-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :N.D.B. Raju, Ms. Bharti Raju, N. Ganpathy, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
A presiding judge is duty bound not only to see that no innocent is punished, but also that guilty does not go unpunished.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 498A – Dowry death – These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. (Para 6)

        (2006)10 SCC 681 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. On 13/14.2.1994 Smt. Mythradevi (the ‘deceased’) was done to death in the bedroom of the matrimonial home of the deceased.

        2. Trial court found the evidence not to be cogent and directed acquittal.

        3. The High Court set aside the acquittal and found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498(A) IPC.

       Finding of the Court :

        Appeal is without merit.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Learned Sessions Judge have found the accused appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 498(A) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short the ‘IPC’).

2. Background facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant are as follows:

On 13/14.2.1994 Smt. Mythradevi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was done to death in the bedroom of the matrimonial home of the deceased. According to ‘the investigation reports by about 6 a.m. on 14.2.1994 the inmates of the matrimonial home of the deceased learnt about the suspicious death of the deceased. By 9.30 a.m. on the very same day parents of the deceased came to the matrimonial home of the deceased after hearing the news of death of their daughter Mythradevi. Father of the deceased (P.W.6) informed the same to the Jurisdictional Police i.e., Srirampura Police Station as per complaint Ex. P.6. Thereafter, first part of investigation under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) proceedings took place at about 2 p.m. on the same date after arrival of Taluk Executive Magistrate Mr. Y.M. Ramachandra Murthy (P.W.1). His inquest report is at Ex. P.1. The investigating agency kept watch over the dead body till the inquest proceedings were conducted, then the dead body was shifted for post mortem to Victoria hospital. As it was late in the night, autopsy was done on the dead body on 15.2.1994 by Dr. S.B. Patil (P.W.2). He gave postmortem report as per Ex. P2 and his opinion is at Ex. P 3. According to him, death was due to asphyxia as a result of compression of neck by human hands.

The parents, sisters and other relatives of the deceased were examined. Their statements revealed after marriage between the parties, deceased started living in the matrimonial home, Parents visited the deceased on 4 to 5 occasions. The last time the parents saw her alive was on 12.2.1994 i.e. about two days prior to her death. During this 12 months period of her stay at matrimonial home, according to kith and kin, deceased was very depressed, unhappy and was even scared to talk to any of kith and kin including the parents, whenever they visited her at matrimonial home. During her visits to the parents house, on enquiry they found the cause of her depression and unhappiness. It was due to improper treatment at the hands of her husband. Her husband was not talking to her. He was not looking after her well and he did not even like her. This was made known to her by coming home at very late hours and not talking to her in the normal way. Last visit of her parents on 12.2.94 to invite the deceased and the respondent for their first wedding anniversary at the parenta1 house of the deceased was rejected by the husband of the deceased. After that, they got the news about her death on 14.2.1994 at about 9 am

The accused was not found at home. Therefore a search to apprehend him commenced. According to P.W. 3 on 15.2.1994 he was apprehended and produced before the Police Inspector (P.W. 11) as per the report at Ex.P 4. Prior to that the PSI (PW5) on the basis of the complaint of father of the deceased, registered Crime No. 71/94 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. A spot mahazar was conducted under Ex.P-7, under which M.Os. 6 to 8, blood stained bed sheets, pillow cover and saree of the deceased were seized. During the inquest proceedings personal ornaments of the deceased found on the dead body i.e., M.Os. 1 to 13 including gold bangles and chain came to be seized. Ex. P.8 is the wedding card. Exs. P.9 and 10 are the photographs, which were taken at the time of inquest proceedings to show the exact position of the dead body in the bedroom of the matrimonial home of the deceased. P.W. 7 is the mother of the deceased. P.W. 8 i











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top