Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, K.M. JOSEPH, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Sandeep Kumar And Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand And Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos.1512-1513 Of 2017
Decided On : 02-12-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – Dowry death – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – There was no mark of any injury on dead body – Deceased was an old patient of TB – Prosecution was unable to prove that the deceased died due to poison – In viscera also, there is no poison – Though there was a long gap in sending viscera, appellants could not be blamed for the same – Though deceased died at a very young age of 28 years, there is history of tuberculosis before marriage – No injury was found on body of deceased as per inquest report and post mortem – Oral evidence adduced by prosecution itself ruled out physical cruelty in connection with dowry – There is no report to police in regard to harassment for dowry – There is ample evidence to show that deceased was a patient of Tuberculosis and also suffering from Eosinophilia and stomach ache – This may be cause of her death. It has been found that this is not a dowry death – There is no charge under Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and only charge under Section 304-B not being proved, appellants were acquitted – Police did not recover any poison from appellants or their house – Were it a case of forcible poisoning, by using a corrosive poison, there would been some marks – There are none – If it were forcible poisoning by using any kind of poison, there would be struggle and resistance from victim – Evidence of witnesses do not establish poisoning – There is no evidence in this case which could have persuaded High Court to conclude that there were compelling reasons to interfere with acquittal by High Court – Appreciation of evidence of witnesses by trial court unless it is found to be a case of misreading of evidence or are based on an erroneous understanding of law, could not have been interfered with – High Court, without any justification, reversed acquittal – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and judgment of Sessions Judge restored. (Paras 10, 20, 22, 23, 50, 55, 56 and 63)
Facts of the case:
Appellants, who were charged with the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, stood acquitted of the said charge by Sessions Judge, Haridwar. However, in appeal carried by the complainant/respondent No.2 herein, the verdict of acquittal was set aside and the appellants after conviction under section 304-B of IPC stand sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Findings of Court:
High Court, in our view, without any justification, reversed acquittal. High Court has sought to draw support from the circumstance that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the car. The first appellant has a case that he has taken the deceased to certain hospitals. There is also a case that they themselves notified the Police. We find it certainly not a circumstance so as to draw an inference that the deceased died an unnatural death or that the appellants administered poison to her.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Court emphasized that exceeding jurisdiction can have severe consequences, especially when personal liberty is involved in a criminal trial (!) .
The appreciation of witness evidence by the trial court should generally be upheld unless it involves misreading of evidence or an erroneous understanding of law (!) .
The Court highlighted the importance of proper judicial restraint and the necessity for substantial and compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal, reinforcing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (!) (!) .
The judgment under review involved a case of alleged dowry death, but the evidence did not establish that the death was unnatural or caused by poisoning. The deceased had a history of tuberculosis, and no poison was found in viscera or on the body (!) (!) .
The medical evidence indicated that the cause of death could be attributed to natural illnesses such as tuberculosis, and there was no conclusive proof of poisoning or physical injuries that would suggest cruelty or violence (!) (!) .
The evidence regarding demand for dowry was inconsistent and unreliable, with contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses about the timing and amount of any such demand. The absence of police reports or complaints about dowry harassment further weakened the prosecution’s case (!) (!) .
The recovery of the dead body from the car and the circumstances of death were not sufficiently explained by the accused, but the evidence did not conclusively prove poisoning or homicide. The absence of poison in viscera and the lack of physical evidence of poisoning or injury cast doubt on the prosecution’s version (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the medical and forensic evidence failed to establish that the death was unnatural or caused by poisoning, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
The Court reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish all essential elements of the offence, including unnatural death and the accused’s role, and that the absence of scientific evidence of poisoning is significant (!) (!) .
The Court underscored that the appellate court should only interfere with an acquittal if there are very substantial and compelling reasons, such as palpable legal or factual errors, or a grave miscarriage of justice. Mere disagreement with the trial court’s findings on credibility or evidence is insufficient (!) (!) .
The Court reiterated that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent, and that the evidence must exclude any reasonable hypothesis except guilt (!) .
It was highlighted that the absence of direct evidence, such as scientific proof of poisoning, does not automatically negate the possibility of guilt, but the totality of circumstances must unerringly point to the accused’s guilt for a conviction (!) .
The Court emphasized the importance of a holistic evaluation of evidence, including medical, forensic, and testimonial, and the necessity for the prosecution to prove the unnatural death beyond reasonable doubt (!) .
The judgment reinforced the principle that the Court should uphold the trial court’s findings unless they are clearly unreasonable, illegal, or based on misreading of evidence (!) .
Overall, the Court found that the evidence did not substantiate the charge of dowry death or poisoning, and that the trial court’s acquittal was justified and should be restored (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
1. The appellants, who were charged with the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) stood acquitted of the said charge by learned sessions judge, Haridwar. However, in appeal carried by the complainant/respondent No.2 herein, the verdict of acquittal was set aside and the appellants after conviction under section 304-B of IPC stand sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. We heard Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel for the appellants. Shri Krishnam Mishra, learned counsel for the first respondent-state and Shri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the second respondent.
3. On the basis of the complaint, by second respondent dated 23.01.2011 at 5.00 pm, an FIR was lodged. This led to the appellants finally being charge sheeted for having committed the offence under Section 304B of the IPC. The facts stated in the FIR read inter alia as follows:
The daughter of the second respondent was married to the first appellant on 10.12.2009. After few days of the marriage the appellants who are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of his deceased daughter started harassing her for dowry. About one month ago, his daughter and son-in-law came to his house and remained there for two days. On both these days his son-in-law, namely, the first appellant demanded from him, his sons and sons’ wives a sum of Rupees ten lakhs within 10 to 15 days for the construction of the house. The second respondent expressed his inability. Thereafter, seeing tears of his daughter who said that her parents must pay the amount otherwise they will kill her, she was sent away after being consoled. Thereafter, his daughter is alleged to have phoned him, his family and his relatives thereby informing them that her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law were torturing her for money and they are provoking her to commit suicide. On 23.01.2011 at about 9.30 am, he received phone call from his deceased daughter to come at Haridwar otherwise they will kill her on that day. So, they went there. The dead body of the daughter was found in the car given by them in marriage. The death of the daughter was caused by poison and the appellants were responsible.
4. In the charge-sheet, it is, inter alia, stated that on the basis of investigation and evidence given by the witnesses and the recovery of the material from the spot, which contains the vomiting of the deceased and was cleaned by the accused, thus, on the basis of the evidence, offence under Section 304B was proved.
5. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The appellant examined four witnesses DW 1 to DW 4. Some documents including FSL Report, were produced.
THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. PW1 is none other than the father of the deceased. He deposed, inter alia, as follows:
The appellants and other relatives had come before the marriage and they did not make any demand of dowry from him. In the marriage they gave Alto Car but they demanded Santro Car. He arranged for Santro car. He spent Rupees fifteen lakhs. At the marriage there was no dispute. After the marriage when they came for meeting, at that time also, there was no demand for dowry. The deceased got opportunity for admission in B.Ed. before marriage. After marriage, these persons (the appellants) asked to complete B.Ed. and the expense has to be borne by him. Thus, on appellants wishes, he bore the expense. After one month the daughter came and the appellants said that their marriage could have been arranged for 20-25 lakhs. Upon being confronted with this, the appellants stated that the mistake has been committed and they will not say such words. Thereafter, the deceased used to say in between that the appellants are demanding ten lakhs. Before 3 to 4 months he received phone call from deceased that the appellants are pressing her to take poison forcefully and asking for ten lakhs. He made phone calls to the relative of the first appellant
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
