LexAMRUTLAL LILADHARBHAI KOTAK & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 871 AMRUTLAL LILADHARBHAI KOTAK & ORS. A v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2010) FEBRUARY 26, 2015 [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498-A, 304-B and s.306 rlw C s.114-8 - Dowry death - Conviction by courts below relying on evidence of friends and relatives of the deceased as regards mental torture and harassment of the deceased by the accused, for bringing insufficient dowry - On appeal, 0 held: As the deceased died by committing suicide within seven years of her marriage and four witnesses have further proved that cruelty was meted out to the deceased immediately before her death, courts below rightly presumed that the suicide was abetted by the accused persons E (husband and relatives of the husband) - Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.113-A and 113-8. ss. 304-B and 498-A - Nature of the provisions under - Held: ss.304-B and 498-A are not mutually inclusive - F . Acquittal under one provision does not necessarily lead to acquittal under another provision. Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113-A and 113-B - Introduction of the provisions - O~ject of - Discussed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Section 3048 and Section 498A of IPC are 871 G H 872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 2 S.C.R. A not mutually inclusive. If an accused is acquitted under one section, it does not mean that the accused cannot be convicted under another section. According to Section 1138 of the Evidence Act, presumption arises when a woman has committed suicide within a period B of seven years from the date of the marriage. In the present case, after going through the documentary evidence and the version of the witnesses, the accused were convicted u/ss. 3048 and 498A of the IPC. Therefore, a reasonable apprehension can be raised, for C that the accused committed a crime under Section 3048 of the IPC and a presumption can be raised under Section 1138 of the Evidence Act, since seven years of marriage had not been completed. [para 13] (879-D-G] D Ba/want Singh and Ors. vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2008 (13) SCR 1111 = (2008) 15 sec 497- relied on. 2. It is not easy to gather direct evidence in cases of dowry death because such crimes are generally E committed in the privacy of residential homes. That is why the legislature has by introducing Sections 113A and 1138 of the Evidence Act, tried to strengthen the prosecution hands by permitting a presumption to be raised if certain foundational facts are established and F the unfortunate event has taken place within a period of seven years. [para 14] [880-A-8] G State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh and Ors.1991 (2) SCR 790 = (1991) 3 sec 1 - relied on. 3. The first criterion with regard to establishment of guilt in the cases of dowry death is that the suicide must have been committed within seven years of marriage. The second criterion is that the husband or H some relative of the husband had subjected the victim AMRUTLAL LILADHARBHAI KOTAK v. STATE OF 873 GUJARAT to cruelty, which led to the commission of suicide by A the victim. This is when Section 113A of the Evidence Act indicates that in such circumstances, the Court may presume, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. In the B present case, both the above mentioned criteria have been satisfied, since the deceased died within seven years of marriage and w:ith the version of the witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 1; 8 and 9, it has been further proved that there was cruelty meted out to the deceased c immediately before her unfortunate death. [para 16] [880-F-H; 881-A] Dinesh v. State of Haryana,. 2014 (5) SCALE 641, Thanu Ram v. State ofM.P. 2010 (12) SCR 710 = (2010) D 10 sec 353 - relied on. Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. 2007 (7) SCR 1051 = (2007) 10 SCC 797; Sushi/ Kumar Sharma v. Union of India 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 730 = (2005) 6 SCC 281; Sakatar E Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana 2007 (9) SCR 842 = (2004) 11 SCC 291, M. Srinivasu/u v. State of A.P., (2007) 12 sec 443, Matru v. State of U.P. 1971 (3) SCR 914 = (1971) 2 sec 75 - cited. Case Law Reference 2007 (7) SCR 1051 cited para 12 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 730 cited para 13 2004 (11) sec 291 cited para 13 2007 (9) SCR 842 cited para 13 1971 (3) SCR 914 cited para 13 2008 (13) SCR 1111 relied on para 14 F G H 874 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1991 (2) SCR 79
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.