Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Ravinder Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 2024
Decided On : 06-03-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 304B/34 and 498A/34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27 and 65A – Murder, dowry death and cruelty – Common intention – Circumstantial evidence – It is necessary for prosecution that circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – In a case like present one, where husband and wife reside together in a house and crime is committed inside house, it will be for husband to explain how death occurred in house where they cohabited together – However, even in such a case, prosecution will have to first establish that before death occurred, deceased and accused were seen in the house – This will be more necessary in view of specific plea of defence of alibi – CDR was not proved in terms of Section 65A of Evidence Act – For a recovery to be admissible on statement made under Section 27 of Evidence Act, it has to be from such a place which is exclusively within knowledge of maker thereof – Recovery is from a place accessible to one and all – Prosecution has not been in a position to prove any other circumstance beyond reasonable doubt – High Court has failed to draw a distinction between “may have committed the crime” or “must have committed the crime” – Conviction and sentence imposed upon appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC set aside – However, conviction and sentence in respect of offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 IPC restored. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court convicted appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/-. All accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.20,000/- for offences punishable under Section 304B/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.25,000/- each for offence under Section 498A/34 IPC with further direction that in case of default in payment of fine they would undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and three months respectively. Present appeal arises against judgment and order passed by Division Bench of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on 12th October, 2015 in Criminal Appeal thereby dismissing appeal filed by appellant herein.
Findings of Court:
Appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of more than fifteen years. In that view of matter, it will not be necessary for appellant to deposit fine amount. Appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal arises against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on 12th October, 2015 in Criminal Appeal No.287 of 2015, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein.
2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1 Deceased-Meena, daughter of Mani Ram (PW.3) and Gyanwati (PW.6), got married to the appellant-Ravinder Kumar (accused No.1) on 20.06.1999. A male child named Harry was born out of the said wedlock on 26.08.2000. On 27.04.2001, at 0055 hours, a First Information Report (“FIR” for short) bearing No.129/2001 (Ext. PW-9/A) was registered at the instance of deceased-Meena in the Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi for investigation into the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short. ‘IPC’). In the said FIR, deceased-Meena made allegations with regard to cruelty made by her husband-Ravinder Kumar (accused No.1) and his two brothers, namely, Pushpender Singh (accused No.2) and R. Harshinder (accused No.4) during her stay at the matrimonial home at H.No.252, Old Chandrawal, Civil Line, Delhi. In the said FIR, after completion of the investigation a Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) was submitted. However, it appears that there was a compromise between the parties and she made a statement before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Delhi that she does not want to proceed with the case any further. She further stated that she has no grievance against the accused persons and that the complaint had been made by her out of frustration and anger. She had also stated that she was living separately with her husband and child happily, as such criminal proceedings were terminated and the accused were discharged vide judgment dated 21.10.2003.
2.2 On the morning of 29.05.2004, dead body of Meena was discovered at about 0820 hours lying in a pool of blood on the floor of the room on the ground floor, her throat slit with a sharp edged weapon and her son Harry aged about three and a half years was found sitting nearby.
2.3 The FIR No.211/04 (Ext. PW-1/A) came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on the basis of rukka (Ex.PW-15/B) sent by Sub Inspector Ram Chander (PW.15). The FIR was later converted into a case involving for offence punishable under Section 304-B/498- A/34 of the IPC on the basis of the statements made by Mani Ram (PW.3), Shiv Kumar (PW.4) and Gyanwati (PW.6), father, brother and mother of deceased Meena respectively.
2.4 On conclusion of the investigation, charges were framed against Ravinder Kumar (accused No.1), the husband of the deceased, Babu Lal (accused No.4), who is the father-in-law of the deceased, Phoolwati (accused No.3), who is the mother-in- law of the deceased and Pushpender (accused No.2) and R. Harshinder (accused No.5), who are the brothers-in-law of the deceased. At the conclusion of the trial, by judgment and order dated 25.11.2014/08.01.2015, the Addl. Sessions Judge-02, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”) convicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/-. All the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 304B/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.25,000/- each for offence under Section 498A/34 IPC with further direction that in case of default in payment of fine they would undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and three months respectively.
2.5 Being aggrieved thereby, two criminal appeals came to be preferred by the convicted persons. Mani Ram (PW.3), the father of the deceased also filed an independent appeal being Criminal Appeal No.569 of 2015, being aggrieved by the acquittal of accu
Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
(1) Murder – Conviction could be based solely on the basis of evidence of a solitary witness, however, testimony of such a witness is required to be found to be credible andTrustworthy.(2) Accused ca....
Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, with a complete chain of evidence and the exclusion of every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must provide a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, failing which the accu....
The judgment establishes that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a clear and conclusive chain of evidence, and that extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by relia....
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
