LexARUN KUMAR SHARMA versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 14 S.C.R. 1023 . -"/ ARUN KUMAR SHARMA A v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2003) ~ OCTOBER 5, 2009 B [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] .-\ ~ Penal Code, 1860- ss.302, 3048 and 49BA - Unnatural · death of married woman within 7 years of marriage - Death allegedly caused due to ligature strangulation - Allegation of c dowry demand not proved, hence accused-hqsband and parents-in-law acquitted of offence u/s.3048 and 498A - Husband however convicted u/s.302; parents-in-law acquitted of all charges - On appeal by husband, held: Evidence of all .... )I.. the witnesses was extremely suspicious and did not inspire D confidence - Multiple bruises on neck of deceased could be due to forcible pressure of fingers - Even if deceased died of throttling, no convincing evidence that husband alone throttled her to death - Delay of 5 days in sending FIR to Magistrate also suspicious - Investigation was slip-shod - E Benefit of doubt given to husband and acquitted. Appeal - Criminal Appeal - Role of appellate Court - Held: Is extremely important - All questions of facts are open before the appellate Court. F According to the prosecution, PW1 's sister was subjected to cruelty by her husband and parents-in-law on account of dowry demand and on the incident date, while she was held by her parents-in-law, her husband \ -t murdered her by strangulating her neck. The prosecution G case was based upon the sole testimony of PW1. The death was unnatural and occurred within 7 years of marriage. The Trial Court held that no demand of dowry was proved and thereafter acquitted the deceased's 1023 H 1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A parents-in-law of all the charges and convicted only the husband (appellant) under s.302 IPC. The conviction was confirmed by the High Court. In appeal to this Court the question which arose for consideration was whether the prosecution was unable 8 to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and hence the husband-appellant was liable 'to be acquitted. Allowing the appeal, the Court · C HELD:1. The evidence of PW1 is extremely casual in nature. It is not known as to what this witness was doing at 6 O'clock at his sister's place. Even after seeing his sister being murdered, he did nothing. It is also not known as to why this witness did not inform the police 0 for 15 hrs., after the so called murder. The evidence of this witness was sought to be corroborated by the evidence of his father PW4. His evidence is of no use because admittedly he was not present there. He only said that his son informed him that his sister was being subjected to beatings by her father-in-law, brother-in-law and her E husband. He also added the name of the brother-in-law. Who this brother-in-law is, was not clarified nor was he (brother-in-law) made an accused in the proceedings. Again, it is quite mysterious that even this witness who was a literate witness, did not do anything for the whole F . day and did not go to the police. It is only when the police came to the spot that he made his statement. The ev.idence of this witness is extremely suspicious for the simple reason that he did nothing for the whole day nor did he go to the police station at all. Ordinarily, he would G have confronted the parents of the accused-appellant and would have asked about the death of this daughter. He also did not raise any objection on the accused leaving their house. He kept quiet for the whole day, for more than 15 hours till the police reached him and H recorded his statement., The evidence of PW-3 is also "' ' ARUN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF BIHAR 1025 -f extremely suspicious for the simple reason that even he, A' inspite of the fact that he was informed of the murder, kept quiet. He also for some mysterious reasons kept quiet for about 15 hours. When matched with the evidence of PW-1, the evidence of this witness becomes suspicious. In short, all the three witnesses do not inspire B any confidence. [Paras 14, 15, 16 and 17] [1032-F-H; 1033- ~ A-C; F-H, 1034-A-D] ..,,.. 2. If the theory of the prosecution was that she was being severely beaten by fists and slaps by the accused C: persons, then some ante-mortem injuries ought to have been found. On the other hand, even her. bangles were not broken. PW-1 has specifically admitted that her glass bangles were intact in her hands. The evidence of PW2 - x suggests t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.