LexINDRAJIT SURESHPRASAD BIND & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 931 INDRAJIT SURESHPRASAD BIND & ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 613 of 2007) MARCH 18, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] A 8 Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3048, 498A and 306 - Suicide by married woman -Conviction of appellants (husband and in- C laws) - Justification - Held: Not justified - Letter allegedly written by victim to her brother (PW3) was the only evidence produced by the prosecution to prove that the appellants had subjected the victim to harassment and cruelty in connection with demand for dowry - But since there were grave doubts as D to the whether the said letter was actually written by the victim or not, conviction of appellants only on the basis of the said letter would be unsafe - Prosecution unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants subjected the victim to cruelty or harassment - Further, letter written by PW3 to the E victim three weeks before the incident made it clear that PW3 was satisfied that the victim was living happily and was not being misbehaved with - No other material having come in evidence to establish that the appellants instigated the victim to commit suicide, it cannot be held that the appellants had F in any way abetted the suicide by the victim. · The wife of appellant No.1 committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body .. She died out of burn · injuries. It was alleged by the prosecution that appellant no.1 and his parents (appellant nos.2 and 3) had G subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment for dowry and had instigated her to commit suicide. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 3048, 931 H 932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 2 S.C.R. A 498A and 306 IPC. The conviction was affirmed by the High Court and, therefore, the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The letter dated 16-02-2004 allegedly written B by the deceased (Ext. 49) to her brother (PW-3) from her matrimonial home at Ahmedabad is the only evidence produced by the prosecution to prove that the appellants had subjected the deceased to harassment and cruelty in connection with demand for dowry. But, this Court has C grave doubts as to whether the said letter dated 16-02- 2004 (Ext. 49) was at all written by the deceased to PW 3. The said letter dated 16·02-2004 is alleged to have been written by the deceased from Ahmedabad. However, PW3 has not stated in his evidence specifically that on 16-02- D 2004 the deceased was at Ahmedabad. Further, the evidence of DW1 supported by Ext. 44 makes it probable that the deceasetl was not at Ahmedabad but at Chaksiriya village In Blhar on 16-02-2004 when she is alleged to have written the letter (Ext. 49) alleging demand E of dowry and ill-treatment by the appellants towards her. Moreover, from a reading of Ext. 49 which is in. Hindi, it is found that at many places the author of the letter has used words in 'puling' instead of 'strillng', which raises serious doubts as to Wht!ther the letter has been written F by a woman or by a man. Since there are grave doubts as to whether the letter (Ext. 49) was actually written by the deceased or not, conviction of the appellants only on the basis of the said letter (Ext. 49) for the offences under Sections 3048, 498A and 306, IPC is unsafe. [Para 4] [935- G H; 936-A-C, E-H] 2.1. Ext. 31, a letter dated 25-04-2004 Is admitted by PW 3 to have been written by him from Chakslrla In Blhar to the deceased at Ahmedabad. From the contents of the letter dated 25-04-2004, it is clear that after talking to H the deceased on telephone, PW3 was satisfied that the INDRAJIT SURESHPRASAD BIND & ORS. v. STATE 933 OF GUJARAT deceased was living happily and was not being A misbehaved with. This letter is dated 25-04-2004 and was most proximate to 18-05-2004 When the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and this letter is evidence of the fact that the deceased was happy and was not being misbehaved with by anybody. B This being the evidence, there are reasonable doubts in the story of the prosecution that the appellants had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment soon before her death. [Para 5) (937-A, F-G] 2.2. On a reading of Ext. 31, it is difficult for the Court to record a definite finding that there was a demand of Rs.33,000/- or Rs.43,000/- towards dowry as alleged by c the State. In any case, even if there was such demand
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.