Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 327

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Ramanand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.357 of 2008
Decided On : 11-04-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG, Puneet Parihar, Shrey Kapoor, Lalit Mohapatra, Saurabh Rajpal, Sitesh N. Singh, Adhiraj Singh, Ms. Shikha Sandhu, Vivek R. Mohanty, Milind Kumar, Advs.
For the Respondent:- Ms. Pratibha Jain, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
In a case where prosecution is coming up against acquittal of accused and is praying for conviction on a graver charge, accused is entitled to plead for acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Murder of wife and daughter – Screening of evidence – Appeal against acquittal – Medical evidence on record is very clear and precise that deaths were as a result of strangulation and their bodies were sought to be set afire in order to create an impression as if they had died of burn injuries – Finding by trial court was completely correct – It is impossible to assume how deceased could have strangulated herself and then attempted to set herself afire – View taken by High Court is wholly unjustified – There could not have been conviction of respondent under Section 306 IPC – Marriage was more than 10 years old and as such no statutory presumption on any count could be drawn, more particularly, when none of prosecution witnesses had supported case of prosecution as regards demands of dowry and harassment – Apart from strangulation marks nothing was found in post-mortem report regarding any other bodily injury – Absence of any evidence as regards dowry or related harassment also nullifies element of presence of any motive on part of respondent – None of prosecution witnesses alleged anything against respondent nor are there any other supporting circumstances such as discovery of any relevant fact – In view of medical evidence on record, deaths could never be termed as a case of suicide and consequently conviction of respondent under Section 306 was wholly unjustified – There is nothing on record to conclusively establish that respondent was author of crime – Circumstances on record do not rule out every other hypothesis except guilt of accused – However strong suspicion be, respondent is entitled to benefit of doubt and cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC – Respondent acquitted of charge under Section 306 IPC. (Pars 9, 10, 15 and 16)
       (B) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal against acquittal – In a case where prosecution is coming up against acquittal of accused and is praying for conviction on a graver charge, accused is entitled to plead for acquittal. (Para 14)
       Facts of Case:
       Murder case. Respondent was convicted by Trial Court under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for having committed murder of his wife and daughter and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan acquitted him of charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC but convicted him under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years RI, which judgment is under challenge in this appeal by Special Leave.
       Findings of Court:
       Fact that the deaths are as a result of culpable homicide is beyond any doubt but question is whether respondent could be said to be author of crime. Entire case of prosecution on this count rests purely on circumstantial evidence. It is true that deaths have occurred in a room occupied by respondent along with wife and daughter but no witness has been examined to suggest that respondent was at or around his residence at relevant time. Marriage was more than 10 years old and as such no statutory presumption on any count could be drawn, more particularly, when none of prosecution witnesses had supported case of prosecution as regards demands of dowry and harassment.
       Result – Appeal rejected.

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

The respondent was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for having committed murder of his wife Anita and daughter Ekta and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 and 3 years RI for that under Section 201 IPC in Sessions Case No.62 of 2000. In DB Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2002 preferred by the respondent, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur by its judgment and order dated 07.03.2006 acquitted him of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC but convicted him under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years RI, which judgment is under challenge in this appeal by Special Leave.

2. On 21.09.2000 at about 9:11 p.m. a report Ext. D-1 was lodged by the respondent to the following effect:-

"To

The S.H.O.

P.S. Patan

Sir,

Most respectfully I submit that my wife burnt to death this evening on 5.30 p.m. I was at my shop and my brother was also there. My mother and younger brother's wife had gone to our house in Bihar. My wife was half mad. She was burnt to death. When the smoke arose in the house and sounds of the crying came out of the house, the neighbour came running to my shop and informed me. I went to the house, went up the stairs and pushed the door open. I saw my wife and daughter were burnt to death. The above report is produced. My marriage took place some 10 years ago on 21.09.2000.

Sd/-

Yours

Ramanand Agrawal

S/o Shri Vishashwar Dayal

R.S. Dabla"

3. The aforesaid report was registered in the Case Diary and appropriate steps under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were taken by PW14 Tulsi Ram who at the relevant time was Incharge of Police Station Patan. On the next day at about 6:15 a.m. a written report Ext. P-2 was received from PW2 Rakesh Agrawal, brother of deceased Anita that his sister and niece were burnt to death; that his sister was being harassed for dowry and that the respondent and his family members were responsible for the deaths of his sister and niece.

4. The report Ext. P-2 was received by PW15 ASI Rajendra Singh, pursuant to which crime was registered and investigation was undertaken. Inquest Reports Exts. P-6 and P-7 were prepared regarding the bodies of Anita and Ekta and they were sent for autopsy. Photographs of the bodies Exts. P-14 to P-19 were also taken and site plan Ext. P-21 at the place of occurrence was also prepared. The post-mortem on the bodies was conducted by a Board consisting of three doctors. As regards Anita, the report Ext. P-13 had following relevant observations:-

"Fairly built & nourished, P.M. lividity present on back of body. R.M. present all over the body. Partially burnt clothes are present on body. No smell like kerosene like substance. The whole body has burns (Post mortem in nature) except back of trunk and hips. Burns limited upto skin only. Hair of head & pubic area are partially burnt and axillary hair are totally burnt. Face is swollen. Tongue is protruded-swollen. Eyes are partially open conjuctive having patechial hemorrhage. Both hands are clinched. Bloody froth is coming out of both nostrils and mouth."

"In the opinion of the medical board the cause of death is Asphyxia due to strangulation (throatling)

- Burns are post-mortem in nature as there is no blister formation, no line of redness and no signs of inflammation."

The report Ext. P-12 regarding Ekta made following observations:-

"Fairly built & nourished, P.M. lividity present on back of Body, R.M. present all over body. Partially burnt clothes are present on body. No smell like kerosene, like substance. The whole body has burns (P.M. in nature) except back of trunk and hips. Burns limited upto skin only. Hair of head burnt partially. Face is swollen. Tongue is protruded-swollen. Eyes are partially open. Conjuctive having patechial hemorrhage. Both hands are clinched. Bloody froth is coming out of both nostrils and mouth."

"In the opinion of the Medical Board the cause of death is Asphyxia due to strangulation (throating).

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 327

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.State of Rajasthan – AppellantVersusRamanand – RespondentCriminal Appeal No.357 of 2008Decided On : 11-04-2017

IMPORTANT POINTIn a case where prosecution is coming up against acquittal of accused and is praying for conviction on a graver charge, accused is entitled to plead for acquittal.

Cases Referred (2)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Ramanand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.357 of 2008
Decided On : 11-04-2017

IMPORTANT POINT
In a case where prosecution is coming up against acquittal of accused and is praying for conviction on a graver charge, accused is entitled to plead for acquittal.