Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. EQBAL, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.
Amrutlal Liladharbhai Kotak & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2010
Decided on: 26-02-2015
(2008) 15 SCC 497 – Relied upon
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B and section 113B, Evidence Act, 1872 – Reasonable apprehension about commission of crime u/s 304B by the accused evidenced – In view of the death within seven years of marriage presumption can be raised u/s 113 B. (Para 14)
(1991) 3 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B r/w section 113B, Evidence Act, 1872 – Deceased dying within seven years of marriage – Cruelty to deceased soon before death established – No infirmity in conviction and sentence. (Para 16, 17)
2014 (5) SCALE 641; (2010) 10 SCC 353 – Relied upon
(2007) 10 SCC 797; (2005) 6 SCC 281; (2004) 11 SCC 291; (2007) 12 SCC 443; (1971) 2 SCC 75 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The marriage between the deceased and the appellant No.3 herein took place on 01.05.1996. After the marriage, deceased was residing in a joint family with her in-laws appellant Nos.1 and 2 and her husband appellant No.3. Out of the said wedlock, a girl was born.
On 23.03.2000 at around 1130 Hrs, while father of the deceased was discharging his duties in his office, he received a telephonic message from Appellant No.1, that his daughter is hanging by the fan and that he may immediately come to Morbi.
The accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B & 306 IPC read with Section 114 IPC.
The appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court.
High Court upheld the ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of conviction recorded by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
1. This criminal appeal, by special leave, is directed against the impugned common judgment dated June 17, 2009 of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No.1327 of 2004 filed by the appellants and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. The High Court in the present matter upheld the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court by stating that the evidence led by the complainant (PW-1), the elder sister of the deceased (PW-8) and the grandfather of the deceased (PW-9) gets support from the evidence led by PW-7, who are the friends and relatives of the deceased.
2. The case of the Prosecution is that the marriage between Truptiben (the deceased) and the appellant No.3 herein took place on 01.05.1996. Truptiben was the daughter of one Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia of District Rajkot in Gujarat. After the marriage, Truptiben was residing in a joint family with her in-laws appellant Nos.1 and 2 and her husband appellant No.3 at Morbi, Gujarat. Out of the said wedlock, a girl named Gopi was born.
3. On 23.03.2000 at around 1130 Hrs, while Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia was discharging his duties in the Bank of Baroda at Rajkot, he received a telephonic message from Appellant No.1, that his daughter is hanging by the fan and that he may immediately come to Morbi. Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia informed about the said telephonic message to his nearest relatives and thereafter, they all proceeded towards Morbi.
4. In the meantime, Appellant No.1 had informed about the said incident to Morbi City Police Station. The P.S.O, who was on duty at the relevant time, made the relevant entry in the Station Register and directed the ASI to investigate the matter. The ASI went to the scene of the offence and carried out preliminary investigation. He recorded the statement of Appellant No.1 and thereafter, sent a yaadi to the P.S.O to register the incident as an accidental death, which came to be registered as A.D. No.16/2000. Thereafter, investigation into the said incident was taken over by Police Inspector Mr. Jaynarayan Rameshwar Srivastav. The Investigating Officer informed Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia, the father of the deceased, of the said incident and in return he asked the Investigating Officer not to disturb the position of the dead body of his daughter till he arrives at Morbi.
5. The said Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia, the father of the deceased arrived at 1500 Hrs on the same day. He felt something fishy behind the death of her daughter Truptiben, as the appellants had demanded dowry several times in the past, which was further strengthened by the fact that none of the appellants were present in the house at the relevant point of time.
6. On the same day, i.e. on 23.03.2000, in the evening hours, a criminal complaint with regard to the said incident was filed by the father of the deceased against the appellants, which ultimately, came to be registered as I-C.R No. 92/2000 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B & 306 read with Section 114 of the IPC. The body of the deceased was taken off the fan and sent for post-mortem examination. The investigation was carried out and the statements of several witnesses were recorded.
7. After the registration of the complaint against the appellants, an arrest warrant was issued by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Morbi on report filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 70 Cr.P.C, but the appellants were untraceable. They were absconding for a period of thirty six days and ultimately on 29.04.2000 at around 2130 Hrs., the appellants surrendered themselves at the Morbi City Police Station.
8. The appellants were produced in the court of the District & Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.7, Morbi in Sessions Case No.52/2000 and the trial was held. During the trial, the witnesses were examined at length. The witnesses PW-1, PW-8 and PW-9 stated that the deceased used to complain about the mental torture and harassment fr
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
