Back
2010 (1) N.C.C. 371
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Criminal Appeal No. 1233-1234 of 2002
ARULVELU & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 07.10.2009
(B) Conviction — In criminal cases the conviction can be sustained only when there is clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt — But cannot be convicted on grounds that in all probabilities the accused may have committed the crime. (Para 22)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 378 — Powers of High Court — Interference in — Scope and ambit — When by no stretch of imagination — It could be held that judgment of trial Court was based on no evidence or on evidence which is thoroughly unreliable — And no reasonable person would act upon it and consequently the judgment of trial Court is perverse — The law is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, unless judgment of acquittal by trial Court is perverse — Appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its own view and reverse judgment of acquittal. (Paras 24, 25)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 378 — Acquittal by Trial Court — Guidelines for High Court in dealing with cases in which trial Courts have acquitted the accused — Stated. (Paras 39 to 45)
(E) Appeal before Supreme Court — Interference with judgment of High Court — Circumstances for — Stated. (Para 42)
¼v½ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dh fo'oluh;rk & izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks ,d Kkudks'k ugha dgk tk ldrk ftl esa dsl dk iw.kZ bfrgkl fo|eku gks & ijUrq izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa vfHk;kstu dh ,d foLr`r dgkuh ntZ gksuh pkfg, & Bksl vkSj vko';d rF;ksa dk lekos'k uk fd;s tkus ls izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dh fo'oluh;rk izHkkfor gks ldrh gSA ¼izLrj 16½ ¼c½ nks"k flf) & QkStnkjh ekeyksa esa nks"k flf) mlh n'kk esa ekuh tkrh gS tc lansg dh ifjf/k ls ijs Li"V lk{; miyC/k gks & ijUrq ,slh laHkkouk ds vk/kkj ij nks"k flf) ugha gks ldrh fd laHkor% vfHk;qDr }kjk vijk/k fd;k x;k gksxkA ¼izLrj 22½ ¼l½ n.M izfd;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 378 & mPp U;k;ky; ds vf/kdkjksa esa gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dk foLrkj vkSj lhek & tc dsoy dYiuk ds vk/kkj ij ,slk fu.kZ; fn;k tk, fd voj U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; fdlh lk{; ij vk/kkfjr ugha Fkk vFkok ,sls lk{; ij vk/kkfjr Fkk tks iw.kZr;k vfo'oluh; gS vkSj ,sls fu.kZ; ij dksbZ Hkh mi;qDr O;fDr fo'okl ugha djsxk vkSj voj U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks mYVk djkj nsxk & dkuwu lqLi"V gS fd nks"keqfDr ds fo#) vihy esa tc rd fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; myVk uk gks rks vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk viuk fopkj iquLZFkkfir fd;k tkuk vkSj nks"keqfDr ds fu.kZ; dks iyVuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gksxkA ¼izLrj 24] 25½ ¼n½ n.M izfd;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 378 & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nks"k eqDr djus dk fu.kZ; fn;k tkuk & mPp U;k;ky; ds okLrs ,sls dslst dks Mhy djus ds okLrs ftuesa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vfHk;qDr dks fjgk dj fn;k x;k gks] ekxZn'kZu fd;k x;k gSA ¼izLrj 39 ls 45½ ¼;½ mPpre U;k;ky; ds lEeq[k vihy esa mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; esa gLr{ksi fd;k x;k vkSj mlds fy, ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;kA ¼izLrj 42½
Dalveer Bhandari, J. — These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 12.3.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 1992 and Criminal R.C. No. 691 of 1991 respectively.
2. In the instant case, the High Court has reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Periyar District in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1999 and convicted the accused persons.
3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the matter are recapitulated as under :
This appeal is filed by Arulvelu, A-1 and Krishnasamy, A-2 (father of A-1). Appellant Arulvelu has been convicted under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and he has been further convicted under section 498-A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. Appellant accused no. 2 has been imposed sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 498-A of IPC, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
4. Before the marriage of Arulvelu with Mangayarkarasi (since deceased), an agreement was entered into to the effect that towards the consideration of the marriage, deceased’s father P.W.1 would give gold ornaments of the weight of 50 sovereigns along with other articles and a car to Arulvelu.
5. The father of the deceased could give ornaments of the weight of only 50 sovereigns of gold and also could not give the car as undertaken. Instead of giving the remaining ornaments of 20 sovereigns and a car, P.W.1 in all gave only Rs. 5,000/- in small installments. This was the main cause of annoyance of Arulvelu and his family members with the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that accused nos. 1 to 3 had been torturing the deceased Mangayarkarasi by demanding a car and money.
6. A baby boy was born to Arulvelu and the deceased Mangayarkarasi. Arulvelu told his wife that he would take back her along with the newly born child only if ornaments of the weight of 5 sovereigns and a cash amount of Rs. 5,000/- were given to him. The father of the deceased had given ornaments of the weight of 4 sovereigns and a cash of Rs. 5,000/- to the first accused. The first accused had taken back the deceased and the child only after receiving the aforementioned articles from P.W.1.
7. The first accused had demanded the balance ornament of the weight of one sovereign when the second child was born. The father of the deceased gave ornament of the weight of one sovereign.
8. The first accused had sent the deceased Mangayarkarasi many times to her father for getting money for doing business. According to the prosecution, since the car was not given to the first accused, he had beaten and tortured the deceased asking her to get the car from P.W.1 Mangayarkarasi ultimately became disgusted with her life and at 11.30 a.m. on 15.3.1989, she committed suicide by hanging herself.
9. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 20 witnesses. K. Ramalingam P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. D. Latha P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased. S.T.P. Muthusamy Mudaliara P.W.5 is the neighbour. Thirumathi N. Yasodha P.W.2 is the tenant of P.W. 1 and P.W.3 A. Periasamy is the person who had arranged the marriage of the first accused and the deceased. V.P. Subramaniam P.W.6 is a close relative of the deceased. N. Manickam P.W.8 is a member of the Panchayat. S.A. Periasamy P.W.9 is another Sambandhi of P.W.1 who later on turned hostile.
10. The fact that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself is undisputed. The question which arises for our adjudication is whether the appellant is guilty for compelling the deceased to commit suicide. According to the prosecution she was forced to commit suicide because of consistent demands of dowry made by the first accused. According to P.W.1 the father of the deceased, his daughter committed su
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
