LexPRABHUDA YAL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F PRABHUDA YAL AND OTHERS v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA [KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAY AL, JJ.] MAY 14,1993 Indian Penal Code 1860-Ss. 302, ./98A, 201 read wirh 3./ and S. 306 read wirh 3./-Burning of young married woman-Wherher dea1'1 by burning or "s1ra11g11/ation-Wliether suicide or lw111icide-Held,fac1s indicate homicide, and death by strangulation preceding burning. Circwnstamiai Evidence-Held, cwnulative effecr or circwnsrances nega- tives i1111oce11ce of fa1her-in-l.aw and husband-Mother-in-law and Sisrer-in-/aw may not have participated, hence, acquiued. Sangita was married to accused 2on 28th April, 1984. In the intervening night of 14/15 September 1984, the accused found Sangita burning. Sangita 's body suffered 100% burns and the smell of kerosene was noticed even in the spot panchnama. There had been problems relating to dowr~-, and she had complained of ill-treatment and of being beaten because of failure to pay the dowry amount. ' The trial judge acquitted accused 1-4 - her father-in-law, husband, mother-in-law_ and sister-in-law respectively. The High Court examined the evidence afresh, while castigating the trial .Judge for having gone merely on the statement of the Public Prosecutor that only a case under Ss. 306, 498-A and 34 was made out. The High Court com·icted the accused under S.302 r/w 34, S.201 r/w 34 and 498-A r/w 34. Partly dismissing the appeal, this Court. G HELD : I. It was a case of murder and not suicidal death. H It is not possible that there were no 'cries' from the deceased while she was burning. This is not possible c\'en in a case of suicide. Some of'thc symptoms ofintcrnal and external injuries arc common in 878 ) , -: ,-- - - - - PRABHL'DAYAL 1·. STATE Of' MAHARASHTRA JDAYAL. JJ 879 case of strangulation and hurns. But some s~·mptoms that occur in the case of A strangulation, and not in case of' burns, arc present in this case. Dr. K.S. Narayan Reddy, The fasentialv of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology 6th cdn. p. 55, relied on. 2. The prosecution rest<> it<> case only on circumstantial evidence. B The1·eforc, it is necessary to examine the impelling circumstances attending the case and examine whether the cumulatil'c effect of' those circumstances negatil'cs the innocence of' the appellants and ser\·cs a definite pointer towards their guilt and unerringly leads to the conclusion that with all human probability the offence was committed b~· the appellants and none else. State of U.P. "·Dr. Ravindra Praka.~h Mittal, JT (1992) 2 SC 114at121, applied. Taylor, Medical Jurisprudence, relied on. On an appreciation of the circumstances which arc established as being closely linked to one another, the complicity of appellant" I and 2 i<> not in doubt. But it is not necessary that appellants 3 and 4 also participated in the murder of the deceased. They arc gil'en the benefit of' doubt and according!~· acquitted. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 1992. · From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.1992 of the Bombay High Court c D E in Crl. A. No. 148of1989. F A.N. Mulla, Ms. Shefali Khanna and J.M. Khanna for the Appellants. S.B. Bhasme, S.M. Jadhav and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAY AL, .J. This is an appeal by the fotir accused persrn1s against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated INh November. l9'J2. Appellant No. I who was accused No. 1 was tried for the offcm:e of ha\'ing H 880 SUPRB1E COURT REPORTS I 19931 ~ S.C.R. ;:.-- committed the murder of his daughter-in-law Sangi ta, wife of appellant No.2 who was accused No.2, during the night between 14th September, 1984 and 15th September, 1984 at the residential house of the appellants al Murtizapur with common intention and also for having treated her with cruelly on account of dowry amount. ln the alternative the appellants were alsll charged for tile offence of having abetted the deceased Sangi ta in commission of suicide by subjecting her H · to cruelty. Appellant no.3, who was accused N\J.3, is the wife of accused No. I and appellant No.4, who was accused No. 4. is their daughter. Appdlants 1 to 4 are hereinafter called accused Nos. 1 to 4. c The story of the pmsecution was as follows:- The accused run a printing press at their residence. Marriage of accused No. 2 was settled with the 5th daughter of Madan la! (PW. 8). Few days prior to the settlement
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.