SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 98

CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
Surendra Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Sessions Trial No.310/97



The guilt under Section 498A IPC was established through consistent witness testimony despite minor contradictions, affirming the necessity for reliability in evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Appeal against conviction for cruelty - Conviction based on allegations of dowry demands and harassment - Acquittal of co-accused with the same evidence calling doubt on prosecution's case - Need for reliability in witness accounts highlighted - Appeal partly allowed; appellants' sentences modified to period already undergone. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 14)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 306, 498A - Necessity of corroboration in witness testimony emphasized - Small variations in testimonies noted but deemed insufficient to discredit the overall prosecution case - Conviction upheld on basis of consistent witness accounts regarding cruelty. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
Appellants convicted for subjecting daughter-in-law to cruelty as a result of dowry demand; trial judge acquitted co-accused citing lack of evidence for complicity.

Findings of Court:
Clear evidence of cruelty, witness statements corroborate prosecution's case despite minor contradictions. Overall conviction affirmed due to consistent witness accounts.

Issues: Evaluation whether the prosecution proved the necessary elements of cruelty under IPC Section 498A.

Ratio Decidendi: Court found sufficient evidence of cruelty in the form of witness statements while recognizing the need for corroboration, maintaining conviction on prudent grounds despite minor inconsistencies.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; modifications to sentences enacted.

Table of Content
1. appeal challenging conviction under ipc 498a due to perceived lack of evidence. (Para 1 , 2)
2. narrative of events leading to alleged cruelty and subsequent prosecution. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 8)
3. legal arguments focusing on witness reliability and implications for the case. (Para 9 , 10)
4. final observations affirming conviction with modified sentencing based on time served. (Para 12 , 14)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05-1-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, the then District Surguja, M.P.(now C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.310/97 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants guilty for subjecting Anjulata, wife of appellant Surendra (A - 1) and daughter - in - law of appellant Shantibai (A - 2), to cruelty, convicted them under S.498A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC ) and sentenced each of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The learned trial Judge acquitted the appellants from the charges under S.304B of the and also acquitted co - accused Yadunandan, father of appellant Surendra (A - 1), from the charges under S.304B and S.498A of the . Against such acquittal no criminal appeal is reported to be filed by the State.

2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, court below has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid mentioned and thereby committed illegality.

3. As per case of the prosecution, on 01-5-1997, Ramprasad Jaiswal reached to Outpost Karji, Police Station Jaynagar, District Surguja and lodged the merg intimation regarding death of daughter - in - law of his brother Yadunandan and stated therein that on account of pain in the abdomen Anjulata was having problem, she was being treated at Ambikapur, but had not become well. On the same day, deceased Anjulata alias Anju, her father - in - law Yadunandan and his wife and other children were in their home; at about 9.30 morning, Anjulata hanged herself in a room near to her room with a rope connected with a wooden girder of the roof. The hanging rope was cut by her father - in - law Yadunandan with a hope that she may regain life but deceased Anjulata not regained life. On account of death of Anjulata, the merg was written at the outpost, same was numbered at Police Station Jaynagar as Ex. - P / 6. Police reached to the spot and after giving inquest notice (Ex. - P / 7) to the witnesses, inquest (Ex. - P / 1) was prepared vide Ex. - P / 1 and the dead body of deceased Anjulata was sent for post - mortem. Doctor Kamlesh Kumar Tamrakar (PW - 7) conducted the autopsy and noticed following injuries / symptoms: - (i) ligature mark present on neck above the thyroid cartilage passing obliquely upwards toward right upto right angle of mandible and towards it goes obliquely upwards toward left mastoid and upto right side of occipital region then interrupted from right side of occipital to right angle of mandible. Mark is hard brownish in colour, length 14'\" breadth 1\" on dissection subcutaneous tissue under mark is pale, soft tissue of neck above and below the ligature mark is congested. As per the opinion cause of death was due to hanging. It was also opined that death was occurred within 2 days since the post - mortem. He gave his report vide EX. - P / 4. During the investigation, police seized remaining rope, breaking bangles and other articles vide Ex. - P / 2; also seized from appellant Shantibai (A - 2) one piece of bangle for comparison. The spot map was prepared vide EX. - P / 8. Two cheques were seized from Harihar Prasad Jaiswal vide Ex. - P / 12 issued on the name of appellant Surendra Jaiswal (A - 1). On 15-5-1997, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the both appellants and acquitted co - accused Yadunandan Jais












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top