LexBHASKAR RAMAPPA MADAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
./ '· I [2009] 5 S.C.R. 256 A BHASKAR RAMAPPA MADAR AND ORS. v. - STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 2002) '»-- MARCH 31, 2009 .,, B ,.. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 306 and 498A - Married woman c committed suicide - Allegedly due to ill-treatment and harassment for dowry by husband and in-laws - Case of prosecution that accused persons coerced deceased to bring more dowry and accordingly mother of deceased gave cheque of Rs.10,0001- to husband of deceased, but D harassment continued - Accused in defence pleaded that ~ husband of deceased was having a truck which met with accident and mother of deceased gave the cheque for repairs of said truck and not as dowry - Trial court acquitted the accused-appellants - High Court set aside the order of E acquittal - On facts, held: From the documentary evidence on record, prima facie, the defence of accused persons appears to be more probable - At least it creates doubt regarding the case of prosecution - There was no analysis of the conclusions of trial Court by the High Court - Hence, F interference by High Court with the order of acquittal was not r correct. Criminal Law - Investigation - Conducted by complainant - Effect of- Held: Merely because the complainant conducted the investigation, that would not be sufficient to cast doubt on G the prosecution version - The matter has to be decided on case to case basis without any universal generalization. Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Power of appellate ,,_ court - Ambit and scope - Case Law discussed - On facts, H 256 __, ~ BHASKAR RAMAPPA MADAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF 257 KARNATAKA High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by trial court A without analyzing the conclusions arrived at by it, which was not justified - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.378. Appellant No.1 's wife committed suicide. According to the prosecution, appellant no.1 and his family B members· harassed and ill-treated the deceased and coerced her to bring more dowry and accordingly PW2, ' mother of the deceased, gave a cheque of Rs.10,0001- to 't ------ appellant no.1, but the harassment continued which ultimately led to the incident. Appellants in their defence c pleaded that appellant no.1 was having a truck which -=-< met with accident and required heavy repairs and so PW2 gave the cheque for repairs of said truck and not as dowry. Appellant nos. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law, --( appellant nos, 4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law and appellant D no.6 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The trial court held that the Investigating officer should not have proceeded with the investigation as he was the complainant and thus the prosecution version was tainted and also that the evidence of the witnesses E did not inspire confidence and consequently acquitted the appellants. On appeal, the High Court convicted the appellants under ss. 306 and 498A. Hence the present appeal. -( , F Allowing the appeal, the Court • HELD:1. Merely because the complainant conducted , the investigation, that would not be sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution version to hold that the same makes the prosecution version vulnerable. The matter G has to be decided on case to case basis without any universal generalization. [Para 5) [263-G-H; 264-A] Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 ~CC 15 and Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709, H 258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A referred to. 2. As regards the powers of the appellate court in dealing with appeals against acquittal, when su~h an appeal is filed, the High Court has full power to re- s appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusions on such evidence. Both questions of fact and of law are open to determination by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal. 'However, in case of acquittal, there is a double C presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, D the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.