LexPUDHU RAJA & ANR. versus STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2012] 8 S.C.R. 740 PUDHU RAJA & ANR. v. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE (Criminal Appeal No. 1517 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- ss. 302 rlw. s. 34, 304(b) and 201 - c Prosecution under - Death caused of a woman by her husband (A-2) and mother-in-law - By putting her on fire - Circumstantial evidence - Demand of dowry by accused alleged as motive - Trial court acquitting the .accused on the grounds of contradictions in the deposition of-eye-witnesses, 0 delay in lodging FIR and concluding that it was a case of suicide - High Court convicting the accused - On appeal, held: High court rightly convicted the accused - There was sufficient evidence to indicate possibility of dowry harassment and death - Theory of suicide negated by the medical E evidence - Delay in lodging FIR would not materially affect prosecution case in the facts of the case - The discrepancies were not material and did not go to the root of the case. Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of - Held: In a case of circumstantial evidence, prosecution must F establish each instance of incriminating circumstance by clinching evidence - Circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of events on the basis of which, no conclusion other than one of guilt of accused can be reached - Court can take note of explanation u/s. 313 Cr.P. C. in a case of G circumstantial evidence in order to decide whether the chain of circumstances is complete - Suspicion, however grave cannot be treated as substitute for proof - Motive assumes great significance in a case of circumstantial evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313 - Motive. H 740 PUDHU RAJA & ANR. v. STATE, REP. BY 741 INSPECTOR OF POLICE The Transport Commissioner, A.P. Hyderabad and Anr. A v. Sardar Ali and Ors. AIR 1983 SC 1225; State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCG 471: 1983 (3) SCR 729; Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 748: 2010 (2) SCR 119 - referred to. Criminal Trial - Contradictions and omissions in evidence - Held: Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, \ embellishments or improvements, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, must not be made ground for rejection of evidence in its entirety. State v. Saravamam AIR 2009 SC 152: 2008 (14) SCR 405 - relied on. B c Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Power of appellate court - Held: Appellate court can interfere with the order of D acquittal only in exceptional cases, where the order is found to be perverse - Interference in a routine manner should be avoided. Case Law Reference: AIR 1983 SC 1225 Referred to Para 10 1983 (3) SCR 729 Referred to Para 10 2010 (2) SCR 119 Referred to Para 10 2008 (14) SCR 405 Relied on Para 11 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1517 of 2008. E F From the Judgment & Order dated 21.8.2008 of the High G Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2005. Dr. A. Francis Julean, Sumi! Kumar, Danish Zubair Khan for the Appellants. H 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 8 S.C.R. A S. Gurukrishnakumar, AAG, B. Balaji A. Prasanna Venkat, B Krishnamoorthy for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 21.8.2008, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.337 of 2005, by way of which, the High Court has allowed the State appeal c against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2004 in Sessions Case No.618 of 2003 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1 }, Chengalpet, Kachipuram District, by which, the Trial Court had acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 302 r/w 34, 304(b) D and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal as per prosecution are as follows: E A. Padhu Raja (A-1), son of Smt. Angammal (A-2), got married to one Jayalakshmi (deceased}, on 6.9.1998 at Gudalur. At the time of marriage the appellant (A-1) demanded 50 Sovereigns of jewels and Rs.2 lacs in cash, however the parents of the deceased gave 35 sovereigns of jewels and F cash to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, there were persistent demand for dowry by the appellants from time to time, particularly on festive occasion
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.