MADAN LAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 501 · Decided: 05-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 501 
MADAN LAL AND ANR. 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. 
Criminal Appeal No.1701 of 2005 
MARCH 5, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, 
JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.304-B, 498-A - Death on account 
A 
B 
of alleged dowry demand - Injuries found on the neck of 
deceased - Trial court ordered acquittal holding that deceased C 
suffering from epilepsy and possibility of her death on account 
of fit of epilepsy not ruled out - High Court set aside acquittal 
- On appeal, held: Trial court's order was full of surmises and 
conjectures - Conviction as recorded by High Court cannot 
be faulted -
Considering background facts of the case, D 
sentence in respect of s. 304-B reduced to seven years which 
is minimum - Evidence - Medical evidence. 
Prosecution case was that accused persons caused 
the death of the deceased on account of dowry demand. 
The trial Court ordered acquittal holding that dece"sed E 
was suffering from epilepsy and possibility of her death 
on account of fit of epilepsy could not be ruled out. High 
Court set aside the acquittal in respect of appellants. 
Hence these appeals. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The trial Court's judgment was full of 
surmises and conjunctures. Reliance placed on Modi's 
· Medical Jurisprudence to conclude that the injuries found 
F 
on the neck of the deceased were possible due to epileptic G 
fit was also not on a correct reading of the text. It was not 
stated anywhere that even a windpipe or sound box can 
be fractured as a result of epileptic fit. The conviction as 
501 
H 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
.(2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A recorded by the High Court cannot be faulted. However, 
considering the background facts of the case, the 
sentence imposed in respect of section 304-B IPC is 
reduced to seven years which is the minimum. [Para 3] 
[503-F-H; 504-A-B] 
B 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1701 of 2005 
From the Judgement and Order dated 07.10.2005 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Appeal No. 
C 2272 of 2000. 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No. 1042 of 2006 
Rajeev Sharma, Remeshwar Prasad Goyal, for the 
o Appellants. 
E 
TN. Singh, Kamlendra Mishra, for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment 
of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the 
appeals filed by the State. The accused persons faced trial for 
alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-
8, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and 
F Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short 
'D.P.Act'). Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, 
Moradabad (U.P.), directed acquittal of the present appellants 
holding that the prosecution version has not been established, 
and that there was no credible evidence of the deceased Asha 
G having been caused death due to throttling. The trial Court held 
that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and the possibility 
of her death on account of fit of epilepsy cannot be ruled out. 
State questioned the acquittal on several grounds. It was pointed 
out that there was direct evidence of demand of dowry and the 
H Doctor's evidence clearly ruled out the possibility of the injuries 
MADAN LAL AND ANR. V. STATE OF U.P. 
503 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
sustained by the deceased having been caused due to epileptic A 
fit. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court directing acquittal 
was set aside qua accused persons Madan Lal and Hoshiary 
(accused Nos. 2 and 3) appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1701 
of 2005 and Ram Chander the appellant in Criminal Appeal 
No.1042/2006 who was accused No.1. However, the High Court B 
did not interfere with that part of the judgment of the trial Court 
by which (accused No.4) Mithlesh was acquitted. 
2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the 
appellants submitted that the view taken by the trial Court was a 
possible view and the trial Court had analyzed the evidence in C 
great detail to held that the prosecution version was not 
established and on the contrary the defence version was 
probable. According to him, the view taken by the trial Court 
was a possible view and the High Court should not have 
• · 
interfered with the order of acquittal. Learned counsel for the D 
respondent State submitted that the trial Court did not notice 
various relevant aspects. It was pointed out that the Doctors' 
evidence h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.