IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM and Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN
Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors....Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra...Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 891 of 2004
Decided on : November 11 , 2010
AIR 1918 PC 102; AIR 1989 SC 1433; (1996) 7 SCC 275; (1997) 2 SCC 637-Relied on.
Criminal Law - Appreciation of evidence - Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without affecting core of prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject evidence in its entirety. (Paras 14 to 16)
AIR 2009 SC 152; (2009) 11 SCC 106, 334-Relied on.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Presumption of innocence is a human right - Appellate court should not ordinarily set aside judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible. (Paras 22 to 24)
Key Points: - Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s conviction and restored the sessions court’s acquittal of the appellants. (!) (!) - The trial court had rightfully acquitted because medical evidence established the deceased suffered from psychosis and no dowry demand or cruelty could be proved. (!) (!) - Material contradictions and improvements in prosecution witnesses’ statements led the court to disregard their testimony. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The burden of proof lies on the prosecution; the failure of the defence to prove its version does not justify conviction. (!) (!) - The court reiterated the presumption of innocence and the requirement that an acquittal be overturned only if the findings are perverse. (!) (!) (!) - No evidence of dowry demand or ill treatment of the deceased was established, so the charges of abetment to suicide could not be sustained. (!) (!) (!) - Inconsistencies in key witnesses’ statements, such as those of PW.2, PW.7 and PW.8, were found material and caused the court to dismiss their evidence. (!) (!) (!) - The court criticized the High Court’s misinterpretation of Dr. Gurubani’s expert report and failure to address contradictions. (!) (!) - Claims of an illicit relationship were considered irrelevant to the criminal liability of the appellants. (!) - The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the bail bonds of the appellants were discharged. (!)
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, dated 29.4.2004, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 1987, by which the High Court has reversed the judgment and order of the Trial Court acquitting the appellants of the charges under Sections 306/34 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as `IPC').
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that appellant No.1 got married to one Neeru Gupta (hereinafter called as `the deceased') on 1.12.1978 by way of an arranged marriage. Out of the said wedlock, a female child named Mili was born in 1981. There had been some disputes between the husband and wife on petty matters. Neeru committed suicide on 28.9.1985 by hanging herself in the bathroom when all the other family members had gone outside. Rajesh (PW.2), brother of the deceased, filed a complaint dated 30.9.1985, against the appellants i.e. the husband and parents in law of the deceased, alleging that they had been demanding dowry and had given ill treatment to the deceased, and that is why Neeru committed suicide. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against all the three appellants on 9.1.1986 under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution examined a large number of witnesses to substantiate its case. After the conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Court vide its judgment and order dated 21.5.1987, held that the deceased had committed suicide. However, no role could be attributed to any of the appellants for the same, and the prosecution failed to prove any of the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. Thewitnesses examined by the prosecution improved their version with regard to claims of the alleged demands, particularly in respect of the gold ornaments and ill treatment of the deceased. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy, psychosis and depression and had been getting regular treatment for the same. Therefore, it was not a case of dowry demand or treating her with cruelty.
3. Being aggrieved, the State of Maharashtra preferred Criminal Appeal No.865 of 1987 before the High Court of Bombay and the High Court reversed the order of acquittal, convicted the appellants vide its judgment and order dated 29.4.2004 and imposed the punishment of 3 years RI on the husband, appellant No.1, and 2 years on the other appellants i.e. the in-laws of the deceased. Hence, this appeal.
4. Shri K.T.S Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate the medical evidence and depositions of the prosecution witnesses in the right perspective, as the same could not establish conclusively that the suicide by the deceased could be attributed to the appellants to any extent. It was a clear cut case of suicide because of depression, as the deceased had been suffering from epilepsy and other mental disorders. The deceased had developed an illicit relationship with a family friend, Kake, and a letter written by the said Kake had been in the possession of the other family members and, therefore, they had informed her parents and brother about the said illicit relationship. The medical evidence, particularly, the deposition of Dr. Daulatram Nekumal Gurbani (PW.10) made it clear that the deceased had been suffering from serious depression and such a patient often develops suicidal tendencies. The deceased had also made an attempt earlier to commit suicide in 1985 and she had been taken to the local hospital. Subsequently, she had also been treated at Kanpur. The findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court that there was neither any demand of gold ornaments or any kind of dowry, nor had the deceased been subjected to cruelty, could not be held to be perverse by the High Court to bring home the charges against the appellants under Sections 30
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.