DR. SUNIL KUMAR SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 452 · Decided: 11-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 452 
A 
DR. SUNIL KUMAR SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA AND ORS. 
B 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2004) 
NOVEMBER 11, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 306134 and 498A/34 - Conviction 
under - Suicide by married woman 6 years after marriage -
c A/legation against husband and parents-in-law that they ill 
treated the deceased and suspected that the deceased had 
illicit relation with a family friend and that they demanded 
dowry few days prior to her death and all that compelled the 
deceased to commit suicide - Acquittal by trial court -
0 
Conviction by High Court - Challenged - Held: Cumulative 
effect of medical evidence given by three doctors led to the 
inference that the deceased suffered from manic depression 
and had mental/psychosis problem - The protests on part of 
the accused even on a mere suspicion, and asking the 
E deceased to keep distance from the family friend, with whom 
they suspected she was illicitly involved cannot be termed as 
unwarranted - Depositions of father, brother and aunt of 
deceased were full of contradictions and exaggerations -
Allegation of demand of gold ornaments by mother-in-law not 
F found plausible - Certain vital facts stated for the first time in 
court which were neither mentioned in statements made u/ 
s.161 Cr.P.C. nor in FIR - It was a case of gross abuse of 
dowry laws - High Court dealt with the case very casually, 
adopting a very superficial approach to the whole matter and 
brushed aside the a/legation of illicit relationship, for which 
G there had been documentary evidence, without recording any 
cogent reasons for the same -
High Court did not make any 
attempt to appreciate the evidence with accuracy and 
reversed the findings of the trial court which were based on 
H 
452 
OR. S~ 
KUMAR SAMBHUDAYAt: GUPTA v. 
453 
. -STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
evidence and detailed reasons - Code of Criminal Procedure, 
A 
1973 - s.161. 
Evidence: 
Contradictions/Omissions/Discrepancy/Improvement in 
evidence - Reliability of such evidence - Discussed. 
Statement made in FIR or u/s.161 Cr.P.C. not disclosing 
certain facts - Disclosing those facts for the first time in court 
-
Reliability of such evidence -
Discussed -
Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.161. 
Discrepancy in evidence -
Normal and material · 
discrepancy - Distinction between, and their respective effect 
on the credibility of a party's case. 
B 
c 
Presumption of service ...,.. Registered letter - Held: There 
D 
is a presumption of service of a letter sent under registered 
cover- No doubt, the presumption is rebuttable and it is open 
to the party concerned to place evidence before the court to 
rebut the presumption by showing that the address mentioned 
on the cover was incorrect or that the postal authorities never 
E 
' tendered the registered letter to him - The burden to rebut 
the presumption lies on the party challenging the factum of 
service. 
Appeal against acquittal: Interference by appellate court, 
with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court - Scope 
of. 
The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased 
F 
got married to appellant no.1on1.12.1978. A female child · 
was born out of the wedlock in the year 1981. The victim 
G 
committed suicide on 28.9.1985. PW-2, the brother of the 
deceased filed a complaint against the appellants who 
were the husband and the parents-in-law of the deceased 
alleging that they had been demanding gold ornaments 
H 
454 
SUPREME C0URT RfPURf0, ! J10] 1c:; (AODL) SC R 
A and ill-treating the deceased, which drove the deceased 
to commit suicide. 
The trial court acquitted all the accused on the 
ground that the alleged demand of gold ornaments or ill-
s treatment of the deceased could not be established and 
the letters produced by the prosecution were neither 
suggestive of ill-treatment nor of demand of dowry; that 
no such allegations were made either while lodging the 
FIR or in the statements recorded under Section 161, 
C Cr.P.C. and such allegations were made for the first time 
only while making statements before the court during 
trial; and there were material contradictions and 
improvements in the testimonies of witnesses which 
made them unreliable. 
D 
The High Court relied upon the deposition of the 
doctor (PW.10) that the deceased had told him that she 
was deprived of love and affection by her family members 
and had no faith any of them. The High Court held thdt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.