9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (10) TMI 954 - SC - Indian LawsOffence punishable u/s 304B and u/s 498A IPC - Case of prosecution that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had been torturing the deceased Mangayarkarasi by demanding a car and money - wife of accused committed suicide due to tortures - whether it was dowry demand case? - Appellant Arulvelu has been convicted and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment u/s 304B of IPC and further convicted u/s 498A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of 1, 000/- in default to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment - whether the appellant is guilty for compelling the deceased to commit suicide? - According to P.W.1 the father of the deceased his daughter committed suicide because he could not give gold and a car as agreed before her marriage. The accused persons started torturing and harassing the deceased which ultimately led to suicide - conflicting judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court - High Court has reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge Periyar District in Sessions Case and convicted the accused persons. HELD THAT - In our considered opinion the approach of the High Court in the impugned judgment is not in consonance with the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The High Court while reversing the judgment of the trial court observed that in all probabilities I am inclined to hold that there was demand of dowry and the deceased was harassed by the first accused and therefore she committed suicide. In criminal cases the conviction can be sustained only when there is clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the ground that in all probabilities the accused may have committed the crime. The approach of the High Court is wholly fallacious and unsustainable in law. Whether the view which has been taken by the trial court was a possible or a plausible view? - We have carefully perused the judgment of the trial court and the impugned judgment of the High Court. The trial court very minutely examined the entire evidence and all documents and exhibits on record. The trial court s analysis of evidence also seems to be correct. The trial court has not deviated from the normal norms or methods of evaluation of the evidence. By no stretch of imagination we can hold that the judgment of the trial court is based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it and consequently the judgment of the trial court is perverse. We also fail to arrive at the conclusion that the discussion and appreciation of the evidence of the trial court is so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse and the findings rendered by the trial court are against the weight of evidence. The law is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal unless the judgment of the trial court is perverse the Appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its own view and reverse the judgment of acquittal. The expression perverse has been dealt with in number of cases. In Gaya Din (Dead) through LRs. and Ors. v. Hanuman Prasad (Dead) through LRs. and Ors. 2000 (11) TMI 1254 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA this Court observed that the expression perverse means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. The expression perverse has been defined by various dictionaries like Oxford Advanced Learner s Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition - Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong unacceptable or unreasonable. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English - International Edition - Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. New Oxford Dictionary of English - 1998 Edition - Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. etc. We have re-examined the entire case because of the conflicting judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. On careful marshalling of the entire evidence and the documents on record we arrive at the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is a possible and plausible view. The judgment of the trial court cannot be termed as perverse. The High Court ought not to have substituted the same by its own possible view. The impugned judgment of the High Court cannot stand the scrutiny of the well settled legal position which has been crystallized for more than 80 years since the case of Sheo Swarup 1934 (7) TMI 17 - PRIVY COUNCIL . In the facts and circumstances of this case we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. Consequently these appeals filed by the appellants are allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and that of the trial court is restored.
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 304B IPC. 2. Conviction under Section 498A IPC. 3. Reversal of acquittal by the High Court. 4. Evaluation of evidence and credibility of witnesses. 5. Interpretation of suicide note and its implications. 6. Demand for dowry and its impact on the deceased. 7. Role of Panchayat decision in the deceased's suicide. 8. Legal principles governing the reversal of acquittal. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 304B IPC: The appellant Arulvelu was convicted under Section 304B of the IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court concluded that the deceased committed suicide due to the dowry demands made by the first accused, leading to her harassment and eventual death. 2. Conviction under Section 498A IPC: Arulvelu was also convicted under Section 498A IPC with a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. Appellant accused No. 2 was fined Rs. 1,000 under Section 498A IPC, with a default clause of three months simple imprisonment. 3. Reversal of Acquittal by the High Court: The High Court reversed the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing that the deceased's suicide was due to intolerable harassment related to dowry demands. It criticized the trial court for giving undue emphasis to minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. 4. Evaluation of Evidence and Credibility of Witnesses: The trial court had disbelieved the prosecution's version due to lack of corroboration and inconsistencies in the statements of key witnesses like P.W.1 and P.W.3. The High Court, however, discarded these findings without substantial basis, leading to its conclusion of harassment and dowry demands. 5. Interpretation of Suicide Note and Its Implications: The trial court considered the suicide note (Ex. P.8), which stated, "Nobody is responsible for my death. Children should be handed over to mother's house," as a significant factor in acquitting the accused. The High Court did not give this due weight, which was a critical oversight. 6. Demand for Dowry and Its Impact on the Deceased: The High Court inferred that the deceased was harassed due to dowry demands, which led to her suicide. The trial court, however, found no credible evidence suggesting that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with dowry demands. 7. Role of Panchayat Decision in the Deceased's Suicide: The trial court noted that the Panchayat's decision, which restricted visits between the deceased and her parental home, could have caused significant depression leading to her suicide. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the High Court. 8. Legal Principles Governing the Reversal of Acquittal: The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's approach was not in consonance with settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It reiterated that a conviction in criminal cases must be based on clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt, not on probabilities. The trial court's judgment was found to be a possible and plausible view, and thus, the High Court should not have substituted it with its own view without substantial and compelling reasons. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had carefully analyzed the evidence and that its judgment was neither perverse nor against the weight of evidence. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's acquittal was restored. The appeals filed by the appellants were allowed.
|
