2009 Supreme(SC) 1628

2009(6) Supreme 756
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Dr. B.S. Chauhan,JJ.
Arulvelu & Anr. — Appellant
versus
State Rep. by the Public Prosecutor & Anr. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1233-1234 of 2002
Decided on : 7-10-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against acquittal, unless the judgment of the trial court is perverse, the Appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its own view and reverse the judgment of acquittal.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 304 – B r/w 498 – A – Death by Hanging – Deceased committing suicide in matrimonial within seven years of marriage – Prosecution of accused persons Husband and father in law of deceased for torturing and harassing deceased in connection with unfulfilled dowry demand of car and gold ornaments –Acquittal by Trial Court – On Appeal High Court reversed order of acquittal passed by Trial Court and convicted accused persons – Appeals thereagainst – Held High Court ought to have considered the entire evidence in a proper perspective – In the suicide note Ex. P-8, the deceased had not implicated any of the accused – This was indeed a very significant and vital factor which ought to have received proper attention by High Court – No credible evidence to suggest that soon before the death, deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with any demand of dowry which led to a serious act of committing suicide – High Court failed to consider that deceased committed suicide after more than six years of the marriage – It was quite improbable that ordinarily there would be consistent demands of dowry after six years – The fact of consistent demands was not established from clear evidence of the prosecution – There was neither a whisper nor any complaint was filed by P.W.1 before deceased committed suicide – Evidence on record that A-1 wanted deceased to keep some distance from her parental home – To settle the dispute between the husband and wife and to reduce affinity of the (deceased) towards her parental home Panchayat took the decision that both families should not visit each other – The impact of the decision of Panchayat on the deceased was not properly appreciated by the High Court – The High Court failed to appreciate that prosecution failed to prove that with all certainty, dowry demand was the only cause for the deceased to commit suicide – Trial court had carefully analyzed entire evidence on record and the view taken by the trial court was certainly a possible or plausible view –Approach of High Court in the impugned judgment was not in consonance with the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence – Judgment of the trial court could not be termed as perverse – High Court ought not to have substituted the same by its own possible view – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and that of Trial Court restored-Appeals allowed (Paras 20 to 24,45,46)

       Facts of the Case :

        Deceased herein in the instant case committed suicide in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage. Accused persons Husband and father in law of deceased were prosecuted for torturing and harassing deceased in connection with unfulfilled dowry demand of car and gold ornaments. Trial Court acquitted accused persons. On Appeal High Court reversed order of acquittal passed by Trial Court and convicted accused persons.

       2.Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        In the suicide note Ex. P– 8, the deceased had not implicated any of the accused. This was indeed a very significant and vital factor which ought to have received proper attention by High Court. There was no credible evidence to suggest that soon before the death, deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with any demand of dowry which led to a serious act of committing suicide. High Court failed to consider that deceased committed suicide after more than six years of the marriage. It was quite improbable that ordinarily there would be consistent demands of dowry after six years. The fact of consistent demands was not established from clear evidence of the prosecution. There was neither a whisper nor any complaint was filed by P.W.1 before deceased committed suicide. Evidence on record that A-1 wanted deceased to keep some distance from her parental home. To settle the dispute between the husband and wife and to reduce affinity of the (deceased) towards her parental home Panchayat took the decision that both families should not visit each other. The impact of the decision of Panchayat on the deceased was not properly appreciated by the High Court. The High Court failed to appreciate that prosecution failed to prove that with all certainty, dowry demand was the only cause for the deceased to commit suicide. Trial court had carefully analyzed entire evidence on record and the view taken by the trial court was certainly a possible or plausible view. Approach of High Court in the impugned judgment was not in consonance with the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and that of Trial Court restored.

       Result-Appeals allowed