Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1149

2009(4) Supreme 625
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Govindaraju — Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2003
Decided on : 29-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Naresh Kaushik, Rupesh Kaushik, Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s):Anil Kr. Mishra, Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court has full power to review evidence and to arrive at its own independent conclusion whether appeal is against conviction or acquittal.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – Death of deceased in matrimonial home by burn injuries – Prosecution of appellant husband and his parents and brother for ill treating and harassing deceased due to unfulfilled dowry demands and for committing murder of deceased – Trial Court acquitted all accused persons – Appeal against acquittal – High Court set aside judgment of Sessions Judge insofar as appellant was concerned and convicted him for offence under Section 304-B – Appeal – High Court has full power to review evidence and to arrive at its own independent conclusion whether appeal is against conviction or acquittal – High court had not only considered whole prosecution evidence closely but had also considered defence evidence – From the way the evidence had been appreciated by High Court, it was clear that High Court had disapproved of findings given by Trial Court and had done whole exercise of appreciation of evidence independently – High Court has given a clear finding in para 28 of its judgment that the Trial Court was palpably wrong in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused, more particularly, under Section 304B, IPC – Held instant case was completely covered by presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act since all aspects such as cruelty meted out to deceased, her unnatural death within time span of seven years and constant demands of dowry were proved to the hilt – There were many things than what meets eye in death of deceased who died in her own bedroom of burn injuries – At least some explanation was expected from prosecution on that count – Deceased died in the wee hours and yet there was nothing, even suggestive, of any explanation – High Court severally commented on all these aspects Nothing found wrong with High Court’s judgment – Impugned judgment convicting accused of offence under Section 304B, IPC held correct – Appeal having no merits dismissed. (Paras 14 to 16)
       Facts of the Case :
        1. Appellant husband of deceased and his parents and brother were prosecuted herein in the instant case for ill treating and harassing deceased due to unfulfilled dowry demands and for committing her murder. Trial Court acquitted all accused persons on appreciation of evidence. On Appeal against acquittal, High Court set aside judgment of Sessions Judge insofar as appellant was concerned and convicted him for offence under Section 304-B.
        2. Aggrieved appellant has filed present appeal.
       Findings of the Court :
        From the way the evidence had been appreciated by High Court, it was clear that High Court had disapproved of findings given by Trial Court and had done whole exercise of appreciation of evidence independently. High Court gave a clear finding in para 28 of its judgment that Trial Court was palpably wrong in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused, more particularly, under Section 304B, IPC. Held instant case was completely covered by presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act since all aspects such as cruelty meted out to deceased her unnatural death within time span of seven years and constant demands of dowry were proved to the hilt. There were many things than what meets eye in death of deceased who died in her own bedroom of burn injuries. At least some explanation was expected from prosecution on that count. Deceased died in the wee hours and yet there was nothing, even suggestive, of any explanation. High Court severally commented on all these aspects. Nothing was found wrong with High Court’s judgment. Impugned judgment convicting accused of offence under Section 304B, IPC was held correct. Appeal having no merits was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—

1. In this appeal which has been filed by one Govindaraju, original accused No. 1 before the Trial Court (appellant herein), the challenge is against his conviction for the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequent punishment of rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Initially, the appellant/accused Govindaraju was tried for offence under Section 302 and/or 304B, IPC along with his father and mother, accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively as also his brother Vasu, accused No.4. They were tried for the murder of Susheela, the wife of Govindaraju (present appellant) which took place on the night between 28/29 Janunay, 1987 in her matrimonial home which was No. CH.27/1, 6th Cross, Ashokapuram, Mysore.

2. Eventually, we are not concerned with accused Nos. 2 and 3 and also the accused No.4, Vasu, as the accused No. 2 Krishnaiah and accused No. 3, Eramma @ Marimadamma died during the pendency of the trial and accused No. 4 was acquitted both by Sessions Court and the High Court. Initially, both the accused No.1 (for short “A-1”) and his brother accused No. 4 (for short “A-4”) were acquitted by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore. However, in appeal by the State against this acquittal, the present appellant Govindaraju was convicted for the offence under Section 304B, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. That is how the accused is before us in this appeal.

3. The prosecution case was that Susheela was married to the present appellant on 25.05.1986. The original accused Nos. 2 and 3 were parents of the present appellant, while A-4, with whom we are not concerned, was his brother. Susheela died due to burn injuries in her matrimonial home on the night of 28/29 January, 1987. She had no father. Hence, her matrimonial uncle, Ram Krishan had celebrated her marriage. After he came to know about the death of Susheela, he filed a complaint at 9:30 a.m. on 29.01.1987 on the basis of which the further investigation was started and the charge-sheet was filed against the four accused persons. Even before that, A-2, Krishnaiah expired and hence the charges were framed against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 for the offence under Section 302, 304B, 201 read with Section 34, IPC.

4. After the charges were framed, A-3 Eramma @ Marimadamma also expired and, therefore, the evidence was recorded only against the appellant/original accused No.1 Govindaraju and his brother A-4, Vasu. The prosecution case initially was that at the time of marriage the accused had demanded the dowry of Rs.5,000/- and even thereafter during the subsistence of marriage he kept on pestering Susheela and her uncle for dowry. At the time when Susheela expired she was pregnant. She was treated by her in-laws in a cruel manner and ultimately murdered, or as the case may be, she committed suicide due to the cruel treatment of her in-laws and her husband. As a result of this, she died barely within a few months of her marriage. In support of the prosecution case number of witnesses came to be examined including PW-1, her matrimonial uncle, PW-2, her brother, PW-3 another elderly relative and her mother as also some other relations including PW-4 along with other witnesses on investigation and the medical aspect.

5. Initially, the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore acquitted all the accused persons which acquittal was challenged before the High Court which set aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge insofar as the present appellant is concerned and convicted him for the offence under Section 304-B.

6. The Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently contended that the High Court had erred in upsetting the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. In that, the High Court had not found specifically that the findings on acquittal recorded by the Trial Court were in any manner perverse. He further pointed out that the case of the prosecution was initially to the effect t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1149

2009(4) Supreme 625SUPREME COURT OF INDIAV.S. Sirpurkar and R.M. Lodha, JJ.Govindaraju — AppellantversusState of Karnataka — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 570 of 2003Decided on : 29-05-2009

IMPORTANT POINT High Court has full power to review evidence and to arrive at its own independent conclusion whether appeal is against conviction or acquittal.

Cases Referred (3)

2009(4) Supreme 625
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Govindaraju — Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2003
Decided on : 29-05-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court has full power to review evidence and to arrive at its own independent conclusion whether appeal is against conviction or acquittal.