RAJAYAN versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 61 · Decided: 03-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJA YAN 
A 
v. 
~ 'f-
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
MARCH 3, 1998 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
B 
"" 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 304-B (I) and 498-A-Dowry death-Suicide committed by 
the deceased wife-Evidence of deceased's parents showing that since the c 
date of marriage appellant constantly demanding dowry-On the betrothal 
day land transferred in favour of appellant-Evidence further showing that 
even till two years after the marrtDge, there was continuous demand by 
dowry-Two independent witnesses deposed that the appellant was 
quarrelling with the deceased for more dowry-c;.'rhe appellant in his statement D 
under Section 313 Cr PC going to the extent 0dj stating that deceased was 
not his wife-In such circumstances, the, High Court rightly held that the 
deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry· ~oon before· her death for which 
she committed suicide-Conviction under Section 304-B, upheld-Criminal 
Procedure Code, 197 3, Section 3 I 3. 
Criminal Trial : 
E 
Independent witnesses-Testimony of-Evidentiary value-Testimony of 
such witnesses acceptable if there is no reason to disbelieve them-Penal 
Code, 1860, Sections 304-B(J) and 498-A. 
Appreciation of evidence-One of the witnesses deposing that appellant F 
came to his house to place his demand for additional dowry and he agreed 
to place his demand before the parents of the deceased and that he did go 
to the parents-Omission of this fact in his statement under Section 161 Cr 
PC-Effect of-Held, even if such omission amounted to material 
contradiction, still it did not impair his unresbutted evidence that the G 
appellant came to the house of the witnesses with the demand for additional 
-~ 
dowry-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 161. 
Criminal procedure Code, 1973-Section 378-Appeal to the High 
Court against acquittal-When justified-Trial court acquitted the appellant 
from the charges of cruelty and demand of dowry on an erroneouse reasoning- H 
61 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) 2 S.C.R. 
A Trial court failed to consider material evidence on record-Patent infirmity 
in· the judgment and order of trial court-Jn such circumstances setting aside 
of the acquittal and conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B(J) and 
498-A /PC by the High Court, upheld-Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304-B(J) 
and 498-A. 
B 
There were consl.ant demands of dowry by the appellant from his wife 
and her parents. When ·the demand was not immediately met the appellant 
and the other members of his family tortured and harassed the deceased-
,._ 
wife. The wife ultimately committed suicide. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 
(Parents of the deceased) and PW 5, who was cousin of the deceased clearly 
C pointed to the demand of dowry and ill treatment of the deceased due to non 
fulfilment of the same. A plot of land was transferred in nl!llle of the appellant 
on the day his wife committed suicide. On a charge framed under Section 
304-B(l) read with 498-A IPC, the trial court acquitted the appellant and his 
mother and two sisters on an erroneous interpretation of the evidence on 
D 
record. 
The State filed an appeal before the High Court and the mother of the 
deceased filed a revision petition before the High Court. The HigYJ eourt by 
a common judgment while upholding the acquittal of other accused, set aside 
the acquittal against the appellant and convicted him for offences under 
E Section 304-B(l) and 498-A IPC. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing.the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It stands established from the evidence, both oral and 
documentary, that even before the date of marriage the appellant had been 
F insisting upon dowry and on the betrothal day itself, certain land had to be 
transferred in his favour. The evidence further establishes that at the time 
of marriage some gold ornaments were given to the deceased. Then again it 
is the concurrent finding of the courts below that since the third day after 
marriage the appellant was making further demands of dowry which ultimately 
G compelled PWs 1and2 to give him a sum of Rs. 50,000 on 10-9-1986. The 
evidence on record also demonstrates that before marriage and even pll two 
years thereafter the appellant was continuing with his demand for dowry and 
that the deceased was subject to cruelty, both mental and physical. The patent 
infirmity in the judgment of the trial court in this regard is that it considered 
the demand subsequently made in isolation and also failed to notice mat

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