ARULVELU AND ANOTHER versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 1081 · Decided: 07-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 14 S.C.R. 1081 
-+ 
ARULVELU AND ANOTHER 
A 
v. 
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 
AND ANOTHER 
<' 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1233-1234 of 2002) 
~ 
OCTOBER 7, 2009 
B 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
~ 
I .. 
Penal Code, 1860: s. 3048, 498A - Suicide committed 
by wife of first accused - Suicide note not blaming any one -
c 
Trial court acquitting first accused and his father - Conviction 
by High Court holding that there must be intolerable 
harassment meted out to the deceased which prompted her 
to commit suicide - On appeal, held: In criminal cases, 
conviction can be sustained only when there is clear D 
)> 
evidence beyond reasonable doubt - High Court while 
reversing judgment of trial court observed that in all 
probabilities, there was demand of dowry and the deceased 
was harassed by the first accused and therefore, she 
committed suicide - Approach of High Court was wholly 
E 
fallacious and unsustainable in law. 
Appeal against acquittal: Scope of - Held: Unless 
i 
judgment of acquittal passed by trial court is perverse, 
appellate Court is not justified in substituting its own view and 
F 
reverse the judgment of acquittal - Expression 'perverse' 
means that the findings of the subordinate authority were not 
supported by evidence brought on record or they were 
again_st the law or suffer from the vice of procedural 
irregularity. 
G 
FIR: FIR should at/east mention a broad story of the 
prosecution - Non-mentioning of material and vital facts may 
affect the credibility of FIR. 
1081 
H 
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Words and phrases: Perverse - Meaning of. 
Prosecution case was that deceased was forced to 
commit suicide because of consistent demand of dowry 
made by her husband, the first accused. The defence 
8 version was that deceased was depressed due to the 
decision of Panchayat not permitting deceased to go to 
her parents which prompted her to commit suicide. 
Trial Court examined entire evidence and acquitted 
husband and father-in-law of the deceased. On appeal, 
C High Court set aside the acquittal order holding that the 
trial 
Court gave 
undue emphasis 
on 
minor 
contradictions. High Court discarded the version of trial 
Court regarding deposition of father of deceased made 
for the first time in Court regarding the demand of car 
D which he did not mention in the FIR. According to High 
Court, unless an intolerable harassment was meted out 
to her, there was absolutely no necessity for her to write 
in suicide note that the children be handed over to her 
mother's house. First accused was convicted under 
E s.3048 IPC and under s.498A IPC and second accused 
was convicted under s.498A IPC. Hence these appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The FIR should at least mention a broad 
F story of the prosecution. Non-mentioning of material and 
vital facts may affect the credibility of the FIR. High Court 
observed that the FIR cannot be an encyclopedia to 
contain all the details of history of the case. This 
approach of the High Court does not seem to be correct 
G [Para 16] [1092-C-D] 
2. The approach of the High Co~rt in the impugned 
judgment is not in consonance with the settled principles 
of criminal jurisprudence. The High Court while reversing 
H the judgment of the trial court observed that in all 
ARULVELU v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE 
1083 
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 
• 
probabilities, there was demand of dowry and the 
A 
-t 
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 
B 
accused may have committed the crime. The approach 
of the High Court is wholly fallacious and unsustainable 
• 
in law. [Para 22] [1100-0-F] 
~ 
3.1. The trial court very minutely examined the entire c· 
evidence and all documents and exhibits on record. The 
trial court's analysis of evidence seems to be correct. It 
did not deviate from the normal norms or methods of 
evaluation of the evidence. By no stretch of imagination, 
it can be held that the judgment of the trial court was 
D 
.. 
based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly 
-------i' 
).. 
" 
unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it 
and consequently the judgment of the trial court is 
perverse. The law is well settled that, in an appeal against

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.