1990 (9) TMI 366 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Error of law by the High Court in exercising its powers under Section 378 read with Section 386(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C.
2. Determination of the cause and nature of Asha Rani's death.
3. Examination of the motive behind the murder.
4. Evaluation of medical evidence and testimonies.
5. Assessment of the trial judge's approach and findings.
6. Criticism of investigation and procedural delays.
7. Validity and authenticity of the dying declaration.
8. Judicial conduct and criticism of witnesses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Error of law by the High Court in exercising its powers under Section 378 read with Section 386(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C.:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court committed any error in allowing the appeal against acquittal and convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It was established that while caution is necessary in appeals against acquittal, interference is justified in cases of perversity or misreading of evidence. The High Court's decision to set aside the acquittal was found to be within its powers as it identified significant errors in the trial judge's findings.

2. Determination of the cause and nature of Asha Rani's death:
Both the trial court and the High Court agreed that Asha Rani died unnaturally by burning at her in-laws' house. The post-mortem report indicated the presence of kerosene, ruling out accidental death and suicide. The appellant did not seriously challenge these findings, and it was concluded that Asha Rani was murdered.

3. Examination of the motive behind the murder:
The courts found that the motive for Asha Rani's murder was related to dowry demands. Her in-laws continuously pestered her for cash or an auto-rickshaw, and upon failure to meet these demands, she was subjected to torture. The trial judge's attempt to dilute the motive by suggesting strained relations was dismissed, as dowry-related motives are inherent in such cases.

4. Evaluation of medical evidence and testimonies:
The medical evidence, particularly the testimonies of Dr. Saxena, Dr. Temani, and Dr. Patrisia, was crucial. Dr. Saxena confirmed that Asha Rani was conscious and could answer questions when admitted to the hospital. Dr. Temani and Dr. Patrisia both testified that Asha Rani identified her brother-in-law, Ashok, as the person who burnt her. The High Court found no material contradictions in their statements and upheld the consistency of their testimonies despite minor discrepancies.

5. Assessment of the trial judge's approach and findings:
The trial judge's approach was criticized for being faulty and contrary to the rules of evidence appreciation. The judge misread the evidence, indulged in conjectures, and made assumptions unsupported by the record. The High Court corrected these errors, emphasizing that the judge's conclusions were based on imagination rather than material evidence.

6. Criticism of investigation and procedural delays:
The investigation was criticized for not producing local witnesses or the nurse and compounder who recorded the injury report. However, the High Court, referencing the case Chandra Kanta v. State of Maharashtra, concluded that defective investigation does not necessarily discredit the prosecution's case. The High Court found the prosecution's evidence credible despite investigative lapses.

7. Validity and authenticity of the dying declaration:
The dying declaration, as recorded in the injury report, was scrutinized. The High Court found the declaration credible, noting that the deceased was conscious when she made the statement. Despite procedural delays in sending the injury report to the police, the High Court upheld its authenticity, corroborated by consistent entries in the bed head ticket and injury report.

8. Judicial conduct and criticism of witnesses:
The trial judge's uncharitable criticism of Dr. Patrisia, primarily because she was a woman, was condemned. The Supreme Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the judge's conduct, emphasizing that Dr. Patrisia had no reason to falsify her endorsement on the injury report. The High Court's decision to rely on the testimonies of Dr. Temani and Dr. Patrisia was upheld.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to convict the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, dismissing the appeal. The appellant, already in jail, was ordered to serve out his sentence.