2014 Supreme(SC) 745

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
STATE OF KARNATAKA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
SMT. SUVARNNAMMA & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.785 OF 2010
Decided on: 14-10-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
Principles of appreciation of evidence restated.
Even if there are lapses in investing agency’s prosecution of case Court is duty bound to ascertain truth from materials on record.
Minor discrepancies in evidence are to be ignored.
Giving false statement goes against the accused.
When all ingredients of section 498A and 304B, IPC are satisfied, prosecution case cannot be thrown out for lapses of the investigating agency.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Minor discrepancies ought to be ignored – In absence of direct evidence conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if circumstances of conclusive nature ruling out all reasonable possibilities of accused being innocent – If accused takes a false plea in face of probabilities of his involvement, such false plea can be taken as additional circumstance against the accused – Article 20 (3) of the Constitution does not come in the way of the Court ignoring the conduct of the accused in not correctly disclosing the facts within his knowledge – Any lapse on the part of investigating agency cannot per se be ground to throw out the prosecution case when there is overwhelming evidence to prove the offence. (Para 12, 13, 14)

       (1973) 2 SCC 793; (1983) 3 SCC 217; (1988) Supp SCC 241; (1999) 5 SCC 96; (1999) 9 SCC 525; (2000) 1 SCC 247; (2002) 8 SCC 381; (2005) 6 SCC 101; (2006) 3 SCC 374; (2004) 10 SCC 692; (2008) 12 SCC 51 – Relied upon

       (b) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – High court, in view of prosecution not producing dying declaration (D-7), holding death to be accidental – Defence producing the dying declaration – Court was duty bound to ascertain truth from material on record – Ought to ascertain authenticity of dying declaration produced by defence (D-7) and weigh it with the other dying declaration (D-10) relied upon by prosecution – Accused persons feigning ignorance about the incident – Incompatible with D-7 recorded in presence of mother-in-law, one of the accused stating that accused persons were in the house at the time of incident – As pr D-7 no evidence of struggle or cries but the burn injuries are to the extent of 95% – D-7 not reliable. (Para 17)

       (c) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – High Court rejecting overwhelming evidence of demand of dowry on account of minor discrepancies about place of negotiations – Not proper. (Para 18)

       (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Accused persons admitting they were present in the house at the time of incident – Expected to know about the incident and were bound to disclose it – Yet feigning ignorance about it – Clearly false – Goes against them – On the contrary, High Court holding incident being accidental – Not proper. (Para 19)

       (e) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A and 304B – Death of deceased within 7 years of marriage – Subjected to harassment for dowry soon before her death – Death in circumstances other than natural, and not accidental – Mere lapse of investigating agency not enough to throw out overwhelming evidence establishing the case of the prosecution – Accused feigning ignorance about incident going against them – View taken by High Court acquitting the accused not a possible view – Not sustainable. (Para 20, 21, 22)

       Facts of the case:

       Deceased Soumya was married to the accused- Manjunath on 13th May, 1996. She was living with her husband and his mother co-accused Suvarnamma. She was not treated well and was harassed for dowry.

       On 31st August, 1998 at about 6.15 P.M., when her husband had gone out, the accused Suvarnamma brought kerosene can, poured kerosene on the deceased-Soumya and ignited the fire. She cried for help but Suvernamma put a rug on her. Thereafter, she shifted her to Chigateri General Hospital, Davangere.

       Next day in the morning of 1st September, 1998, at about 7 A.M., PW-26, the PSI, in the presence of PW-19, Dr. Rajeshwari Devi recorded her statement.

       The Trial Court held that the offences were proved against the respondents-accused. However, co-accused Geetha, sister of Manjunath was acquitted. The Trial Court held that the demand of dowry soon before the death was established by the evidence of family members of the deceased which was reliable.

       On appeal, the High Court reversed the decision of the Trial Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Case against the accused stands fully established.

       Result: Appeal allowed.