LexASOKAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ASOKAN A v. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS APRIL 5, 2000 [G.B. PAITANAIK AND SlllVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B Criminal law : Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302134 and 201-Evidence-Appreciation of-Deceased died C due to manual strangulation in her in-laws' house-A-2 called PWs 3 and 4 ~ho saw the deceased lying down with injuries on her neck-Neither A-2 was present inside the house nor did PWs 3 and 4 state that A-2 had also partici- pated along with A-1 and A-3 in strangulating the deceased-Held: In the circumstances of the case, trial court justified in giving benefit of doubt to A- D 2 and acquitting him of the offences under Ss. 302134 and 201-High Court erred in interfering with the order of acquittal-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss. 176, 378 and 386. Sections 302134 and 498-A-Dowry death-Evidence-Appreciation of- Non-mention of the name of accused in statement by witness-Effect of- Deceased died due to manual strangulation in her in-laws' house-Case against A-1 and A-3 fully established by evidence of PW-4-However, PW-3 in his statement to Tahsildar during his inquiry under S.176 Cr.P. C. did not mention the name of A-3-Held: Non-mention of the name of A-3 cannot be the sole basis for discarding the evidence of PW-3 in toto-ln the circumstances of the case, conviction of A-1 and A-3 upheld. E F Section 498-A-Dowry death-Husband (A-4) of deceased convicted- Justification of-PW-2 deposed that the deceased had told him that her mother- in-law and A-4 were beating her for not getting a scooter-PW-7 stated that deceased had told him that A-4 had demanded a scooter and also scolded the G deceased for not bringing a cot as dowry-PW 7 also stated that deceased had shown him the injuries and complained that A-4 had inflicted the injuries since he was not presented with a scooter-Held: In the circumstances of the case, conviction of A-4 under S.498-Ajustified. The appellants-accused were charged for offences under Sections H 949 A B 950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R. 302/34, 201 and 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, the trial court convicted A-1 and A-3 only and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. A-2 and A-4 were acquitted. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction of A-1 and A-3 and contjcted A-2 under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC. The High Court set aside the acquittal of A-4 and convicted him under Section 498- A IPC. Hence this appeal. According to the prosecution, A-4 was the husband of the deceased, A-1 and A-3 were the parents of A-4 and A-2 was his younger brother. On the fateful day all the accused persons in furtherance of their common C intention committed murder of the deceased by manual strangulation and motive behind the strangulation was that the demand of dowry was not satisfied by the parents of the deceased. A-2 went upstairs of the same house to call PW s j and 4 and when they canie down they saw the de- ceased lying dead with injuries on her neck. D E F G On behalf on the accused persons it was contended that PW-3 in his statement to the Tahsildar while he was holding an inquiry under Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 had not mentioned the name of A-3 and, therefore, the evidence of PW-3 should be entirely discarded. Allowing the appeal of A-2 and dismissing the appeals of A-1, A-3 and A-4, this Court HELD : 1. There is no prosecution evidence that A-2 was present inside the house when the deceased was strangulated nor the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 establishes in any manner that A-2 along with A-1 and A- 3 had participated in causing strangulation of the deceased. Therefore, the Session Judge was right in giving the benefit of doubt to A-2. The acquittal of A-2 was fully justified and the same could not have been interfered with by the High Court and that also in a perfunctory manner in which the High Court has re-appreciated the evidence. The conviction of A-2 under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 is set aside and A-2 is acquitted of all the charges. (956-F; 957-D-F] 2. At the outset, it must be stated that Tahsildar in fact was required to hold the inquest, since the investigation had entertained suspicion about the cause of death of the deceased and in that connection H was holding an inquiry under Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure .,. ·' i· ASOKAN v. STATE [PATTANAIK, J.] 951 .,.. Code, 1973. No
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.