9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 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 examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossible 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ten 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 Mudaliar 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 suicide because he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso disbelieved the testimony of P.W.1 regarding giving of 4 sovereigns and ₹ 5,000/- to the first accused after the birth of the first child and another sovereign of jewel at the time of birth of the second child for the reason that those facts were not spoken to during investigation. This part of the prosecution case is disbelieved. The trial judge has clearly held that P.W.1 deposed for the first time in the court with regard to demand of a car. He did not mention this fact in the first information report. 13. Ex. P.8 is the suicide note of the deceased which reads as under: Nobody is responsible for my death. Children should be handed over to mother's house. In the suicidal note, the deceased had not implicated any accused. This factor has also weighed heavily with the trial court in acquitting all the accused. The argument on behalf of the accused was that the accused No. 1 had suspected the character of his mother-in-law and other members of his in- law's family, so he did not want the deceased to visit her parents' house and to resolve the dispute Panchayat was held and, as per the version of P.W.1, according to the decision of Panchayat, P.W.1 should n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst accused after the birth of the first child and another sovereign of jewel at the time of birth of the second child for the reason that those facts were not spoken to during the investigation. The High Court held this part of the prosecution case unbelievable, but the fact remains that the demand of dowry was proved beyond doubt through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3. This approach of the High Court is not correct. 20. The High Court ought to have considered the entire evidence in a proper perspective. Unless comprehensive view of the entire evidence is taken in the proper perspective, a correct conclusion may not be possible. In this case, there has been acquittal by the trial court and, while reversing the order of acquittal, the High Court ought to have carefully considered the following circumstances: (1) In the suicide note Ex. P-8, the deceased has not implicated any of the accused. This is indeed a very significant and vital factor which ought to have received proper attention by the High Court. (2) There is no credible evidence to suggest that soon before the death, the deceased has been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with any demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h her sickness, she was driven to such a situation to commit suicide. (9) R. Murugesan P.W.15, the RDO who prepared the inquest report has also stated about the panchayat's decision and has opined that "the reason for her death may be the control exerted on her that she should not go to her mother's house". (10) The trial court has observed that when the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they filed a written statement jointly. In that written statement it has been explained that - "Due to mental agony, incurable stomach-ache, pain over the body and the control by the first accused that she should not go to the house of her parents, Mangayarkarasi had committed suicide". Further that "Arulvelu, without marrying for the second time for several years looked after the children with lot of love and affection so that the children may not feel the absence of their mother. The family of accused is a joint family. In that family, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Vijayakumar, another son of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and his wife Padma are living jointly." (11) The trial court noticed serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 50 sovereigns and a car. Therefore the trial court has disbelieved the presence of P.W.4 during the talks. D. Latha P.W.4 has not given in her evidence that she had known personally that little by little 20 sovereign were given. The trial court has held that P.W.4 does not speak anything about the timings of the torture like four weeks, 20 days or 8 days before the death. (15) S.T.P. Muthusamy Mudaliar P.W.5's testimony does not inspire confidence. He says that during the verbal argument between A-1 and Rukmani Amma, A-1 asked about car. However, Yasodha P.W.2 did not say the same. Further, Rukmani Amma was not examined. It is submitted that the trial court has discussed the contradictions between P.W.2, P.W.1 and P.W.5 and about utterance with regard to car in the quarrel and therefore the trial court has not relied on P.W.5. It is submitted that apart from Rukminiammal, Shaktivel (P.W.1's son) and Planniappan was also not examined by the prosecution. (16) S.A. Periyasamy P.W.9 (Sambandhi of P.W.1) has not supported the case of prosecution. He says that he advised Ramlingam that they should not go to A-1's house often. During his cross-examination he has stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scussion about dowry on presence of some persons. Further that none of the witnesses has stated that they discussed about jewels and car before the marriage. (20) The Panchayat's decision coupled with the condition of illness could have driven the deceased to commit suicide. This possibility cannot be ruled out. P.W.15 has also stated that on 22.3.89 a panchayat was convened to decide on the issue of dispute between both the families. In that Panchayat it has been decided that they should not visit each others house and Mangaiyarkarasi has to be advised accordingly. (21) The High Court has made erroneous observation that: It is not the panchayat decision that the deceased should not visit her parents. The only thing is P.W.1 should not go to the house of the accused. As per the case of prosecution and as per the evidence it is crystal clear that the Panchayat's decision was that `both the familiar should not visit each other'. (22) The High Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has failed to prove that with all certainty, the dowry demand was the only cause for the deceased to commit suicide. The High Court has simply presumed with the following word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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. 26. 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. (2001) 1 SCC 501 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. 27. In Parry's (Calcutta ) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. and Ors.AIR 1966 Cal. 31 the Court observed that `perverse finding' means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. 28. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin AIR 1994 SC 1341 the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 29. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma and Anr. AIR 1977 K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder: 9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. 10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. 35. The meaning of `perverse' has been examined in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, Karnal and Ors. v. Gopi Nath & Sons and Ors. : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312 this Court observed as under: 7. In the present case, the stage at and the points on which the challenge to the assessment in judicial review was raised and entertained was not appropriate. In our opinion, the High Court was in erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529; Sambasivan and Ors. v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412; Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85; Harijana Thirupala and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (2002) 6 SCC 470; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180; Budh Singh and Ors. v. State of UP (2006) 9 SCC 731; Kalyan Singh v. State of M.P. (2006) 13 SCC 303; Kallu alias Masih and Ors. v. State of MP (2006) 10 SCC 313; and State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 755] 37. In Shambhoo Missir and Anr. v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17 this Court observed thus: We are of the view that the High Court has interfered with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court not only for no substantial reasons but also by ignoring material infirmities in the prosecution case. Hence, we allow the appeals and set aside the order of the High Court convicting and sentencing the accused in both the appeals. 38. In Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 this Court reiterated the legal position as under: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court. 3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. 4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. 5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. 40. This Court in a recently delivered judgment State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Ram Naresh 2009 (11) SCALE 699 again examined judgments of this Court and laid down that "An order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused. This Court has dealt with the scope of interference with an order of acquittal in a number of cases." 41. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appellate court shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt is found to be perverse judgment. Interfering in a routine manner where other view is possible is contrary to the settled legal position crystallized by aforementioned judgments of this Court. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. This fundamental principle must be kept in view while dealing with the judgments of acquittal passed by the trial court. 45. 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. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
