1996 (2) TMI 583 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Acquittal of the respondent by the High Court and the appeal by the State.
2. Judicial and extra-judicial confessions, injuries on the deceased, and dowry death presumption.
3. Examination of the case under Section 304-B.
4. Disbelief of extra-judicial confession and judicial confession.
5. Defense version of false case and reliance on evidence regarding demand for dowry.

Analysis:
1. The State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent by the High Court, challenging the decision that acquitted the respondent while finding him guilty under Sections 302/34 IPC and 498-A. The State contended that the case against the respondent was established through judicial and extra-judicial confessions, corroborated by injuries on the deceased, and the presumption of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Evidence Act.

2. The respondent's counsel argued that since the trial court did not convict the respondent under Section 304-B, and there was no appeal by the State against this acquittal, the examination of the respondent's offense under this section was not open. However, the court decided to review the case under Section 304-B due to the charge framed. The High Court disbelieved the extra-judicial confession and found the judicial confession lacking in truth and voluntariness, essential for admissibility in a criminal trial.

3. Regarding the case under Section 304-B, the defense presented statements from the deceased's brothers during the inquest, suggesting the death was accidental. The postmortem report indicated various injuries on the deceased, with the defense arguing that some injuries were inconsistent with lathi blows, supporting the defense's claim of accidental death in a well.

4. The court accepted the defense's argument of a false case, pointing to inconsistencies in the evidence and statements regarding the demand for dowry. The court found it challenging to rely on the parents' claims of dowry demands, considering the brother's statement about no ill will between the families. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the case lacked merit based on the evidence presented and the defense's arguments.