LexJOSHINDER YADAV versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 567 JOSHINDER YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2009) JANUARY 20, 2014 [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: s.302 rlw s.149, s.498A, s.201 - Dowry death - A/legation that victim-deceased was harassed C by accused-in-laws for dowry and one day they poisoned her and threw her dead body in river- Conviction by courts below - Appeal by accused-brother-in-law on the ground that he had separated from his brothers and was not party to ill treatment meted out to the deceased and to the murder - Held: The D evidence of PW-9 and 10, the father and the brother of the deceased, to effect that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment did not suffer any dent and, therefore was reliable - Other attendant circumstances such as strong motive, the fact that on the fateful day, accused no. 6 went to E the house of PW-9 to inform that deceased was missing, but did not lodge report of missing; that when PW-9 and PW-10 went along with accused no. 6 to the house of the accused, accused no. 6 suddenly deserted them and the fact that all the accused absconded from their house with their belongings led F to an irresistible conclusion that the accused were responsible for the death of the deceased - False explanation by accused that the deceased had gone for bath and slipped and got drowned further strengthened the prosecution case - The prosecution having established that the accused treated the G deceased with cruelty/ harassment for dowry, the accused ought to have disclosed the facts which were in their personal and special knowledge to disprove the prosecution case - They failed to discharge the burden which had shifted to them 567 H 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R. A uls.106 of the Evidence Act, therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against the accused - Conviction order not interfered with - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 106. Administration of Criminal Justice: Scientific test - B Investigation - In case of poisoning - Held: Where poisoning is suspected, immediately after the post-mortem, the prosecuting agencies should ensure that the viscera is sent to the FSL for examination and the FSL should ensure that the viscera is examined immediately and report is sent to the C investigating agencies/courts post haste - If the viscera report is not received, the concerned court must ask for explanation and must summon the concerned officer of the FSL to give an explanation as to why the viscera report is not forwarded to the investigating agency/court - These scientific tests are 0 of vital importance to a criminal case, particularly when the witnesses are increasingly showing a tendency to turn hostile - In the instant case, all those witnesses who spoke about poisoning of the victim turned hostile - Had the viscera report been on record and the case of poisoning was true, the prosecution would have been on still firmer grounds - E Directions passed to prosecuting agency/court. The prosecution case was that all the accused use to treat the deceased with cruelty and harassed her for not bringing more dowry. The appellant was brother of F the husband of the deceased. On the fateful day, accused no.6 came to the house of PW9 who was the father of the deceased and informed him that the deceased has run away from the house. PW-9 then proceeded to the house of the accused along with his brother-in-law and son, PW- G 10. Accused no.6 accompanied them for some distance and then left for some other place. They reached the house of the accused and found the house empty. All the accused had left the house with their belongings. On enquiry, the neighbours told him that because the H deceased had refused to transfer her land in the name JOSHINDER YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR 569 of the accused, they administered poison to her and A murdered her. PW-9 met Sub-Inspector by the river side who recorded his statement. A search was conducted and the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the river bed. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302, IPC rlw Section 149 IPC, Sections 498A and 201, IPC. The High Court upheld conviction. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B c HELD: 1.1. The father of the deceased (PW-9) had given a graphic account of the harassment and ill- treatment meted out to the deceased b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.