LexSANJAY KUMAR JAIN versus STATE OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1135 ·sANJAY KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No. 2400 of 2010) DECEMBER 16, 2010 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3048 and 302 - Murder and dowry death - Death of married woman within fourteen months A B of marriage - Ante mortem bodily injuries on her body - C Husband charged ulss. 302 and 3048 - Held: There was no consistency in the prosecution version with regard offence u/ s. 302 thus, accused cannot be convicted u/s. 302 - The parents of the deceased however testified that deceased was subjected to consistent cruelty and harassment by her D husband in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death - Ingredients of s. 3048 having been satisfied, husband convicted u/s. 3048 and sentenced to 9 years rigorous imprisonment with fine - Dowry death - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 1138 - Crime against women. E The appellant's wife died within the fourteen months of marriage. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was being subjected to consistent cruelty and harassment by the appellant for not bringing sufficient dowry which continued till her death. The post-mortem report revealed that the deceased bore ten ante-mortem injuries on her body. PW20, who conducted the post- mortem, opined that the death was caused due to asphyxia following strangulation by rope like material and F the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary G course of nature. The appellant was charged u/ss. 302 and 3048 IPC. On basis of the post mortem report and the evidence of the parents of the deceased, the trial court convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced 1135 H ' 1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A him to life imprisonment. While convicting the appellant, the trial court did not discuss the alternative charge under section 304 IPC. The conviction u/s. 302 IPC was upheld by the High Court. The High Court also did not deal with the charge under section 3048 IPC. Therefore, the B appellant filed the instant appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In a case of circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the C appellant-accused was the only one who had committed the crime and none else. [Para 38] [1154-F-G] 1.2 There is no consistency in the prosecution version on the aspect that the door leading to the house 0 of the deceased had free access and possibility of any other person entering the house of the deceased cannot be ruled out; that the landlord had clear access to the house of the deceased and non-examination of the landlord created serious doubt in the prosecution E version; that the injuries found on the body of the appellant-accused remained unexplained and no question was put to the accused to explain the alleged injuries on the person; that there was a material contradiction as to the ornaments which the deceased was wearing and were missing from her body; that the F string and wicket (stump) were not seized by the Investigating Officer on the same day as they were lying near the dead body; that the string and the wicket (stump) were not sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) despite the opinion of the doctor telling the G circumstances in favour of the accused for being used in the alleged crime; and that the string allegedly used for strangulating the deceased was 8 % inches in length and making it impossible to commit the offence in the manner alleged by the prosecution. [Para 39] [1154-G-H; H 1155-A-F] SANJAY KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF DELHI 1137 1.3 In view of the infirmities in thu prosecution's A version, the conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment of the High Court and the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge are set aside and the appellant is acquitted as far as his conviction under Section 302 IPC is concerned. [Para 40] B [1155-G-H] C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) 10 SCC 193; G. Parshwanath v. State of Kamataka (2010) 8 SCC 593; Varun Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan C JT 2010 (11) SC 419; Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (12) sec 341 - referred to. 2.1 In the instant case, though the appellant was also charged under Section 3048, but in view of his conviction under Section 302 IPC, the trial court did not D proceed with the charge under Section 3048 IPC. [Para 41] [1156-A-8] 2.2 The mar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.