LexROHTASH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 6 S.C.R. 62 ROHTASH V. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No.878 of 2010) MAY 22, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302, 498A - Dowry death - Prosecution case that the victim-deceased committed suicide C by taking pills/poison as she was harassed by appellant- h usband and in-laws - Trial court found material inconsistencies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted all the accused of all the charges - High court upheld acquittal of in-laws, however, reversed order of o acquittal of husband - On appeal, held : The version given by the prosecution witnesses regarding demand of dowry by the appellant did not find.mention in the statement uls.161 Cr.P. C. of either of the witnesses - FSL report did not support the case of the prosecution, rather leaned towards the defence E taken by the appellant - In such a fact-situation, defence taken by the appellant in his statement uls.313 Cr.P.C. plausible - Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges. F Appeal: Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - Held: The appellate court can interfere with the order of the acquittal only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse - The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further G that acquittal by trial court bolsters the presumption of innocence - Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. H 62 ROHTASH v. STATE OF HARYANA 63 The prosecution case was that the daughter of PW.1 A aged about 21 years committed suicide by taking poison as she was harassed by her husband and accused in- laws for bringing insufficient dowry. The case of defence was that the deceased was suffering from fits as a result of which she died. The trial court found material s inconsistencies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted all the accused of all the charges. The High Court held that there was no evidence to show that the deceased died of fits or was suffering from fits and there was sufficient evidence to show c demand of dowry by the appellant from his father-in-law and torture caused to the deceased on the ground of inadequate dowry. The High Court convicted the appellant under Section 304-8 IPC and imposed the punishment of 7 years rigorous imprisonment, further 0 under Section 498-A IPC imposed the punishment of six months RI. In respect of other accused the order of acquittal passed by the trial court was maintained. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. PW.1-complainant deposed that her daughter had complained against the ill-treatment given E to her by her husband, his parents and his elder brother; F they even taunted her that she belonged to "Bhukha- Nanga" family and that her father had not given adequate dowry. The appellant also visited him and asked him to give Rs. 10,000/- so that he could settle himself in some business. Six months after the marriage, he gave G Rs.10,000/- to the appellant after selling his house. Her in- laws still continued to ill-treat her and raised a further demand of Rs.5,000/- on the pretext that they wanted to settle the elder brother of appellant in some business. On the fateful day of incident, 'GC' and 'RK' of Village H 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A Mandora came to him and told that his daughter had consumed poisonous tablets and died. He was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in respect of demand of Rs.10,000/- by appellant as no such fact was stated by him to the 1.0. Even .for the B demand of Rs.5,000/- for the elder brother of the appellant, he was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as no such fact had been mentioned therein. He was also confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as he had not stated before the 1.0. c that he had been informed about the death of. his daughter by 'GC' and 'RK'. Regarding the sale of the house to PW.2 for fulfilling the demand of dowry, PW.1 has admitted that land belonged to the Wakf Board and, therefore, he could not execute any registered sale-deed 0 in respect of the same. PW.2 also deposed that he had p!Jrchase'd the house
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.