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

2014 Supreme(SC) 40

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjana Prakash Desai, J. Chelameswar, JJ.
Joshinder Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2009
Decided On : 20-01-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
In case of suspected poisoning examination of the viscera is of utmost importance.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial - Evidence - Witnesses relatives, father and brother - In matrimonial cases only the relatives can be a witness - Straightforward and honest evidence by a witness without exaggeration - Not suffering any dent in cross-examination - Implicit reliance can be placed on such evidence. (Para 8)

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Harassment and cruelty to deceased sister-in-law - Accused contending to have separated from his brother, husband of deceased - Hence not liable u/s 498A - Despite separation all brothers living in same courtyard - PW 10, father of deceased specifically alleging appellant to be a party to harassment and torture to deceased - After the incident all members of the family absconding - Appellant's contention not acceptable. (Para 9)

       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Presence of strong motive - Accused not lodging any complaint about missing of his wife - Accused 6 going to house of PW9 to enquire about deceased and deserting PW9 and PW10 when they were going to house of accused - All accused deserting their house with all belongings and absconding after death of deceased - Leads to irresistible conclusion that accused were responsible for death of deceased. (Para 12)

       (d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Prosecution establishing cruelty to deceased by accused - Burden was on the accused to disprove the same with facts which were in their personal and special knowledge - Deceased in custody of accused disappearing and found on river bank - Burden was on accused to explain the same with facts within their personal and special knowledge - Burden not discharged - Court entitled to draw adverse inference. (Para 14, 16 and 17)

       AIR 1956 SC 404; (1997) 9 SCC 338 - Relied upon

       (e) Criminal Trial - Circumstantial evidence - Required standard - Evidence produced by prosecution instantly is of required standard - Conviction not improper. (Para 18)

       (1997) 9 SCC 338 - Relied upon impliedly

       (2002) 7 SCC 20 - Referred

       (f) Administration of Justice - Criminal Justice delivery system - Case of suspected poisoning - Viscera examination is of utmost importance - Investigating officer simply informing his officers through diary - Not taking any action to get the viscera examined by FSL - A serious lapse in investigation - Directions issued. (Para 23 and 24)

       2013 (13) SCALE 52; 2013 (15) SCALE 338 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       This is a case of dowry death.

       Appellant and others were charged with harassing and torturing one Bindula Devi, sister in law and wife of the brother of the appellant. It was further alleged that when their demands for dowry were not met, they murdered her by drowning.

       Appellant and his co-accused were convicted u/s 498A, 302, 201 and 197 IPC and their appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. The appellant who was arraigned as Accused 2 was tried along with five other accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with Sections 149 and 201 of the IPC by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura. The allegations against the accused, inter alia, were that they subjected one Bindula Devi to cruelty and harassment with a view to coercing her and her other relatives to meet their unlawful demand of property and that on her failure to fulfill their unlawful demand, in furtherance of their common object, they committed her murder and that they caused disappearance of her dead body with an intention to screen themselves from legal punishment.

2. Bindula Devi was married to Accused 1 Jaipraksh Yadav. The appellant and Accused 3 Shakun Devo Yadav are the brothers of Accused 1 Jaiprakash Yadav. Accused 4 Dani Dutta Yadav is their father and Accused 5 Satya Bhama Devi is their mother. Accused 6 Fudai Yadav is brother-in-law of Accused 1 Jaiprakash Yadav.

3. The prosecution story is reflected in the evidence of Complainant PW-9 Debu Yadav, the father of Bindula Devi. He stated that his daughter Bindula Devi was married to Accused 1 Jaiprakash Yadav. He further stated that in the marriage one buffalo, one cow and one bullock were given as dowry to the accused as per their demand. However, the accused were not satisfied with that. They demanded a wrist watch and a cycle which were given to them. Even then they continued to harass and assault Bindula Devi. She gave birth to a male child. The accused kept Bindula Devi in their house and sent the child to his house so that he would rear the child. PW-9 Debu Yadav further stated that when in Ashwin month he brought Bindula Devi to his house she told him about the ill-treatment meted out to her at her matrimonial home. She did not want to go back.

He tried to pacify her. He transferred two kathas of land in her name. She then went to her matrimonial home. The accused insisted that she should sell the land. As she did not agree to selling of the land, they subjected her to further torture. PW-9 Debu Yadav further stated that on a Monday at about 4.00p.m. Accused 6 Fudai Yadav came to his house and enquired whether Bindula Devi had come there and told him that she had run away from the house. He told Accused 6 Fudai Yadav that Bindula Devi would not run away from her house. He then proceeded to the house of the accused situated in village Kolhua along with his son Sachindra Yadav and his brother-in-law. Accused 6 Fudai Yadav accompanied them for some distance and then left for some other place.

They reached Kolhua village and found the house of the accused to be empty. All the accused had left the house with their belongings. Bindula Devi was also not present. On enquiry the neighbours told him that because Bindula Devi had refused to transfer the land in the accused's name they had administered poison to her and murdered her. Hemet Sub-Inspector of Police by the river side who recorded his statement. A search was conducted. The dead body of Bindula Devi was recovered from the river bed. Formal FIR of PW-9 Debu Yadav was registered on 31/1/1989and the investigation was started. The appellant, Accused 1 JaiprakashYadav and Accused 3 Shakun Devo Yadav surrendered before the court on6/3/1989. Accused 4 Dani Dutta Yadav surrendered before the court on26/8/1989.

4. At the trial, though, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, it's case rested on the evidence of PW-9 Debu Yadav, father of the deceased andPW-10 Sachindra Yadav, brother of the deceased. PWs-2 to 7 turned hostile. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. They contended that when Bindula Devi went to take bath, she slipped in the water, got drowned anddied.

5. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer life imprisonment. They were also convicted under Section 498A of the IPC and sentence














































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