IMPORTANT POINT
Only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and where the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse,the High Court can interfere with the order of acquittal.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 304-B and Section 498-A-Deceased committing suicide in matrimonial home by hanging-Prosecution of appellant, husband of deceased for harassing deceased in connection with unfulfilled demand of dowry-Acquittal by Trial Court-Appeal- Single Judge reversed the judgment of acquittal and convicted and sentenced appellant-Appeal-The allegation about demand of dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and 800 gms. of gold ornaments and harassment and torture made by accused No.1 on deceased was not disclosed and mentioned in the First Information Report or before Tahsildar(PW.21) who recorded the initial evidence- In Ex.P.2 and complaint Ex.P.3 absolutely there was no evidence to show that Rs.25, 000/- was demanded and Rs.10,000/- was given to accused No.1 -Again, payment of Rs.50,000/- and 500 gms. of gold to accused No.1 as dowry was also not established beyond reasonable doubt- Once the prosecution failed to prove basic ingredients of harassment or demand of dowry and the evidence brought on record were doubted by trial court, it was not open to High Court to convict accused No.1 on presumption referring to Section 113-A or 113-B of Evidence Act- The presumption of innocence of the accused being primary factor, in absence of exceptional compelling circumstances and perversity of the judgment, it was not open to High Court to interfere with judgment of trial court in a routine manner-Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and that of Trial Court restored-Appeal allowed (Paras 13 to 15)
       Facts of the Case :
        Deceased herein in the instant case committed suicide in matrimonial home by hanging. Appellant, husband of deceased was prosecuted for harassing deceased in connection with unfulfilled demand of dowry. Trial Court acquitted appellant. On Appeal, Single Judge reversed the judgment of acquittal and convicted and sentenced appellant.
        B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Apex Court held that once the prosecution failed to prove basic ingredients of harassment or demand of dowry and the evidence brought on record were doubted by trial court, it was not open to High Court to convict accused No.1 on presumption referring to Section 113-A or 113-B of Evidence Act. The presumption of innocence of the accused being primary factor, in absence of exceptional compelling circumstances and perversity of the judgment, it was not open to High Court to interfere with judgment of trial court in a routine manner. Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored. Appeal was allowed.
       Result : Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 4th January, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1042 of 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, whereby the learned Single Judge reversed the judgment of acquittal dated 2nd August, 1999 passed by the Xth Additional City Sessions Judge at Bangalore in S.C.No.86 /96 and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC.

The Appellate Court imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. The Appellate Court further ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated below:

The complainant-Parasmal's sister Meena Kumari was married to accused No.1, Anil Kumar on 13th December, 1990. In relation to the said marriage a demand was made by accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 for dowry of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and gold weighing 800 gms. It was agreed by the bride's party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- and 500 gms. of gold as dowry and, accordingly, the marriage was performed. After the marriage, Meena Kumari came to know that her husband Anil Kumar, accused No.1 (appellant herein) had developed illicit intimacy with accused No.2, Sumithra alias Savitri, wife of Kailaschand, (PW-8). After some time, accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 began to treat Meena Kumari with cruelty since she failed to bring the amount demanded by accused No.1 for expansion of his business. Whenever Meena Kumari came to her brother's house, she complained about ill treatment meted out to her by accused No.1. After some days, the amount demanded by accused No.1 was given, but his demand did not subside. On 20th January, 1992 at about 7.00 a.m., Meena Kumari took milk and went inside her house. After some time, accused No.1, Anil Kumar left the house. Thereafter Meena Kumari came out of the house and requested Smt. Kamalamma, a neighbour to bring a nipple for putting the same to tap. When Kamalamma brought the nipple, she found the door of the house closed. Meena Kumari did not open the door in spite of knocking by Kamalamma. At that time, Sarojamma, (PW- 6) was also present. At about 9.00 a.m. the mother of PW-6, Kailas and Anil Kumar came and knocked the door, but the door was not opened. Despite their efforts, door was not opened and there was no response from inside. Therefore, Anil Kumar put his hand through the ventilator and unlatched the door and opened it. When they went inside, they found that Meena Kumari had hanged herself from the fan and had committed suicide. The news spread and later, a friend of the accused Sri Shanthilal (PW-9) came and he gave on phone a message to Meena Kumari's elder brother S. Parasmal (PW-1), who was residing in Mysore. Intimation sent to him was that Meena Kumari was seriously ill and they should come immediately. On their way to Bangalore, Parasmal (PW-1), learnt that Meena Kumari had committed suicide. They reached the house of the accused at about 5.00 p.m. and after ascertaining the matter, Parasmal (PW-1) went to the Police Station and informed the Police. The Police came to the house and after inspecting the spot, took the complaint of PW-1. On the basis of the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.33/92 against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Sri. M.V. Chengappa, PSI, Hebbal Police Station (PW-23) started with the investigation and further investigation was taken up by, Praveena, ACP, Yeshwanthpur Sub-Division (PW- 24). The investigation disclosed that accused Nos.3 to 5 were also involved in the matter. Therefore, they were added in the list of the accused. After further investigation by S.V.D. Souza (PW-25), Police Inspector, ADC, COD, Bang

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 582

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAA.K. PATNAIK, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.S. ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR GANNA … APPELLANTVERUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENTCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.937 OF 2006Decided on : JULY 3, 2013.

IMPORTANT POINT Only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and where the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse,the High Court can interfere with the order of acquittal.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. PATNAIK, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
S. ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR GANNA … APPELLANT
VERUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.937 OF 2006
Decided on : JULY 3, 2013.

IMPORTANT POINT
Only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and where the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse,the High Court can interfere with the order of acquittal.