S. ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR GANNA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 03-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 7 S.C.R. 408 
A 
S. ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR GANNA 
B 
c 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2006) 
JULY 3, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI · 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
ss. 304-8 and 498-A - Suicide committed by bride in her 
matrimonial home - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction of 
husband by High Court - Held: Once prosecution failed to 
prove the basic ingredients of harassment or demand of 
0 
dowry and the evidence brought on record was doubted by trial 
court, it was not open to High Court to convict the appellant 
on presumption referring to s. 113-A or s. 113-8 of Evidence 
Act -- Presumption of innocence of accused being primary 
factor, in absence of exceptional compelling circumstances 
and perversity of the judgment, it was not open to High Court 
E to interfere with the judgment of trial court in a routine manner 
- Impugned judgment of High Court set aside - Evidence Act, 
1872 - ss.113-A and 113-8. 
F 
APPEAL: 
Judgment of acquittal - Interference with, by appellate 
court - Scope of - Explained. 
The appellant and 4 others were prosecuted for 
offences punishable u/ss 304-B, 498-IPC and ss. 3, 4 and 
G 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The prosecution case 
was that the marriage of the sister of PW1 was 
solemnized with the appellant on 13.12.1990; that she 
was treated with cruelty and was harassed for bringing 
insufficient dowry and not fulfilling the further demand of 
H 
408 
·· S. ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR GANNA v. STATE 409 
OF KARNATAKA 
the accused; that on 20.01.1992 she was found hanged 
A 
inside the house. The trial court noticed that accused no. 
2 was the neighbour's wife. It held that statements of 
material witnesses and some others were contradictory, 
and acquitted all the accused persons. On appeal, the 
High Court held that the trial court did not consider the 
B 
provisions of ss. 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act, 
and convicted the appellant u/ss 304-B and 498 IPC and 
sentenced him to RI for 7 years and 2 years, respectively, 
under the two counts. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: 1.1 In the case of Rohtash* this Court has held 
that only in exceptional cases where there are compelling 
circumstances and where the judgment in appeal is found 
c 
to be perverse, the High Court can interfere with the order D 
of acquittal. In the instance case, the evidence of the 
prosecution witnesses PWs.1, 10to16 and 21 shows that 
there are contradictory statements which cannot be stated 
to be a minor contradiction. The improvement in the 
statements of PW.1 and 12 is clear. The allegation about 
E 
the demand of dowry and harassment and torture made 
by accused No.1 on deceased was not disclosed/ 
mentioned either in the FIR or before the Tahsildar (PW.21) 
who recorded the initial evidence. Further, payment of 
stated cash and gold to accused No.1 as dowry was also 
F 
not established beyond reasonable doubt. [para 12 and 
13) [417-G-H; 418-A, D·G] 
Rohtash Vs State of Haryana 2012 (6) SCR 62 = 2012 
(6) sec 589 - relied on. 
G 
1.2 Once the. prosecution failed to prove the basic 
ingredients of harassment or demand of dowry and the 
evidence brought on record were doubted by the trial 
court, it was not open to the High ·court to convict the 
appellant on presumption referring to s. 113-A or s.113-
H 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 7 S.C.R. 
A B of the Evidence Act. The presumption of innocence of , 
the accused being primary factor, in absence of 
exceptional compelling circumstances and perversity of 
the judgment, it was not open to the High Court to 
interfere with the judgment of the trial court in a routine 
B manner. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set 
aside. [para 14-15) [418-G-H; 419-A-B] 
c 
Case Law Reference: 
2012 (6) SCR 62 
relied on 
para 12 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 937 of 2006. 
~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2006 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 
D 1042 of 1999. 
Brijesh Kalappa, Gopal Singh, Divya Nair, N. Ganpathy for 
the Appellant. 
K. Parameshwar, V. Raghupathy, Sanjay R. Hegde for the 
E Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This 
appeal has been preferred' by the appellant against the 
judgment dated 4th January, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1042 
F of 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bangalore, whereby the learned Single Judg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.