LexL. KRISHNA REDDY versus STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 521 L. KRISHNA REDDY v. STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1833 of 2013) OCTOBER 24, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 498A r/w s. 34 -· Charges under - Abated qua husband-accused due to his death - Parents-in-law (accused) discharged - Held: In the facts of the C case, prima facie case not made out against the accused- parents in law - Hence, rightly discharged - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.227. Charges u/ss. 302, 498-A r/w s.34 IPC were framed D against the three accused including respondent Nos.2 and 3. The charges abated against the husband-accused as he committed suicide. The proceedings continued against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (the parents-in-law of the deceased). The discharge petition of respondent E Nos. 2 and 3 u/s.227 Cr.P.C. was allowed. Hence the present appeal by the complainant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The Court is neither a substitute nor an F adjunct of the prosecution. On the contrary, once, a case is presented to it by the prosecution, its bounden duty is to sift through the material to ascertain whether a prima facie case has been established which would justify and merit the prosecution of a person. The interest of a G person arraigned as an accused must also be kept in perspective lest, on the basis of flip'pant or vague or vindicative accusations, bereft of probative evidence, the ordeals of a trial have to be needlessly suffered and 521 H 522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A endured. [Para 7] [528-E-F] Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Sama! (1979) 3 SCC 4: 1979 (2) SCR 229 - relied on. 2. In the present case, the Charge-Sheet does not B indicate any complicity so far as the parents-in-law of the deceased (accused Nos. 2 and 3) are concerned. Obviously, if the murder has been committed in Pondicherry a direct role in that unfortunate event cannot be ascribed to them. It is theoretically possible that they C may have abetted or conspired in the crime or persuaded their son (accused No.1) to have perpetrated the crime. However, this version is not forthcoming from the Charge- Sheet. The Appellant-complainant, in his statement, had alleged that as per the plans of the three accused, D accused-husband had killed the deceased due to dowry harassment. This is the only statement which contains an allegation pertaining to the possible conspiracy of the husband's parents who, it must be kept in focus, were not in Pondicherry at the time when the deceased was E done to death by her husband. It is not sufficient to merely make a bald statement but further catenation should exist linking all the conspirators together. Sifting through the evidence, i.e., the statement made by several witnesses, there is no direct imputation that either of the F respondent nos. 2 and 3 had either independently or along with their deceased son, made a demand for dowry. The deceased couple had earlier been living with the wife's family, and thereafter independently of either of the parents-in-law. In order to make good the G commission of an offence of criminal conspiracy, it should be evident that an agreement between the conspirators should have been in existence at the material time. Since the prosecution would be an exercise in futility it should be brought to a quick end. [Paras 6 and H 8] [526-G-H; 527-A-E, F-G; 529-A] L. KRISHNA REDDY v. STATE BY STATION HOUSE 523 OFFICER & ORS. Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K. Narayana Rao A (2012) 9 SCC 512:2012 (9) SCR 54; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335:1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 387; Stree Atyachar Virod~i Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and Anr. (1989) 1 SCC 715: 1989 (1) SCR 560 • relied on. B Case Law Reference: 2012 (9) SCR 54 relied on Para 6 1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 387 relied on Para 6 c 1989 (1) SCR 560 relied on Para 7 1979 (2) SCR 229 relied on Para 7 CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal · No. 1833 of 2013. D From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 761 of 2010. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, D. Bharathi Reddy for the · E Appellant. Altaf Ahmed, P. Venkat Reddy, Anil Kumar Tandale for the Respondent. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted. This Appeal assails the Order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.