ASHOK KUMAR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 401 · Decided: 11-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
ASHOK KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 J: Section J78 & 386-Murder 
-Acquittal by Trial Court-Appeal against acquittal by State-Powers 
of the Appellate Court-Trial Judge misappreciating the evidence and 
deciding the case on irrelevant considerations-field High Court was 
justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting the' accused. 
Criminal. Trial-Defective investigation-Effect of Indian Evi-
dence Act, 1872: Section 32-Dying declaration-Authenticity of. 
A 
B 
c 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302. Murder-In dowry death 
motive is inheren.t and is not of the individual but of the family-Duty of D 
Court is to examine who translated it into action.· 
The appellant was accused of burning his .sister-in-law to death. 
Accordingly, he was prosecuted for the offence of murder. The Trial 
Judge acquitted him by holding (i) that there was no motive for him to 
cause the murder; (ii) that there were vital contradictions between the 
E 
statement of the' doctors who examined the deceased and that the con· 
viction could not be based on the testimony of doctor before whom the 
dying declaration was made by the deceased; and (iii) that the investiga-
tion was defective because (a) no one from the locality was produced; (b) · 
the nurse and the compounder who took down the injury report on the 
dictation of the doctor was not examined; and (c) no Incriminating 
F 
material was found at the site. 
The State preferred an appeal before the High Court against the 
acquittal order, which allowed the appeal, set aside the order of acquit· 
tat passed by the Trial Court, and convicted the accused under Section 
302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 
G 
Hence this appeal by the accused. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. While caution is the watchword, in appeal against 
H 
401 
!l 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
acquittal as the Trial Judge has occasion to watch the demeanour of 
witnesses, and interference should not be made merely because a diffe-
rent conclusion could have been arrived, the provisions contained in 
Sections 378. and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 do not 
inhibit any restriction or limitation. Prudence demands restraint on 
mere probability or possibility but in perversity or misreading inter-
ference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered 
meaningless. [213H; 214A] 
2. In the instant case, the approach of the Trial Judge apart from 
being faulty was contrary to the rule and appreciation of evidence. 
Appreciation apart the order of the Trial Judge is vitiated as apart from 
deciding. the case on irrelevant considerations, criticising the doctors 
without any basis, drawing an inference against the doctor only because 
she was a lady the most serious error of which he was guilty and which 
rendered the order inrll111 which was rightly set aside by the High Court 
was that he mis-read the evidence and indulged in conjectural inference 
and surmises. Therefore, the High Court did not exceed its powers in 
setting aside the order of acquittal. It did not commit any error in 
allowing the appeal and recording the conviction under Section 378 read 
with Section 386 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [216F; 217E; 220A] 
3. Motive for a murder may or may not be. But in dowry deaths it 
is inherent. In dowry deaths what is required of courts to examine is as 
to who translated it into action as motive for it is not individual; but of 
family. [214H; 21SA] 
4. Argument as a matter of law that defective investigation 
should go to discredit prosecution cannot be disputed but on facts of the 
instant case it is not available. The High Court was right in not discard-
ing the prosecution evidence due to remissness of investigating officers. 
The finding of the High Court that the investigating officer due to 
remissness failed to preserve the site is correct but it does not in any 
manner weaken the prosecution case. Nor any adverse inference could 
be drawn due to non-production of nurse or compounder when the 
investigating report was written on dictation of the doctor. [218F-H) 
Chander Kant v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1974 SC 220, refer-
red to. 
S. Bride burning is a shame ofour society. Poor never resort to it 
Rich do not need it. Obviously because it is basically an economic 
H 
problem of a 

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