LexSHERISH HARDENIA & ORS. versus STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013] 12 S.C.R. 844 SHERISH HAF<DENIA & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 2087 of 2013) DECEMBER 13, 2013 [T.S.THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.227 - Discharge - Order of Sessions Judge discharging the relatives of husband of deceased and ordering continuance of proceedings against husband ulss 498-A and 306 /PC - Held: At this stage, in discharging the accused, Sessions Judge had necessarily to have come to D the conclusion that on a perusal of the material, no prima facie case against them had been disclosed - High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that material and evidence on record sufficiently support trial of husband, father-in-law, E mother-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased - High Court has also rightly upheld the decision of Sessions Judge in holding that the material on record was insufficient to even prima facie indicate complicity of sister-in-law of deceased in the alleged offences of cruelty and abetment of suicide Penal F Code, 1860 - ss.498-A and 306. G H Penal Code, 1860: ss.498-A and 306 - Consideration of plea of accused based on limitation - Discussed. The wife of the appellant (Crl. A. No. 2088 of 2013) committed suicide. Criminal proceedings commenced against the appellant, his parents, his brother and sister- 844 SHERISH HARDENIA v. STATE OF M.P. 845 in-law for commission of offences u/s 498-A and 306 IPC. A The Sessions Judge discharged the four relatives of the husband. In the revision petitions filed by the father of the deceased as also her husband, the High Court reversed the order of the Sessions Judge as regards the parents and the brother of the husband. Aggrieved, the husband B of the deceased and his parents and brother filed the appeals. Dismi$ing the appeals, the Court c HELD: 1. At this stage, in discharging the accused, the Sessions Judge had necessarily to have come to the conclusion that on a perusal of the material, a prima facie case against them had not been disclosed. The Single Judge of the High Court has comprehensively and o correctly analyzed the case law and appreciated the evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case justifying the trial of the husband, the father-in-law, the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law of the deceased. The Single Judge has also rightly upheld the decision of the Sessions Judge E in holding that the material on record was insufficient to even prima facie indicate the complicity of the sister-in- law of the deceased in the alleged offences of cruelty and abetment of suicide. [para 3 and 7] [849-C-E; 851-E-F] State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Thapa 1996 F (1) Suppl. SCR 189 =AIR 1996 SC 1744 = (1996) 4 sec 659; State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh 1978 (1) SCR 257 = AIR 1977 SC 2013 = (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of India v. Praful/a G Kumar Sama/ 1979 (2) SCR 229 = (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia 1989 (1) SCR 560 = (1989) 1 SCC 715 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 = (1992) Supp. 1 335 Michael H 846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A Machado v. CBI 2000 (1) SCR 981 = (2000) 3 sec 262 Suman v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 250 =AIR 2010 SC 518; Sheoprasad Ramjas Agrawal v. Emperor AIR 1938 Nagpur 394 and Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 545 = (1972) 3 SCC B 282; and State of Kamataka v. L. Muniswamy 1977 ( 3) SCR 113 =AIR 1977 SC 1489 = (1977) 2 SCC 699 ·referred to. 2. As regards the plea that no case can possibly be made out u/s 306 read with s. 498 -A, IPC after a marriage C has crossed the seven years' period, suffice it to say that it is only the statutory presumption that stands removed, thereby also shifting the onerous ·burden from the shoulders of the accused to that of the prosecution. It would be idle and in fact illogical to contend that law D expects that on the first demand of dowry, prosecution u/s 498-A has to be commenced. Therefore, keeping in view the concern of the wife and her relatives to save the marriage, pleas founded on limitation have to be viewed with great circumspection. [para 4-5] [850-D-F; 851 -B] E Case Law Reference: 1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 189 referred to para 3 1978 (1) SCR 257 referred to para 3 F 1979 (2) SCR 229 referred to para 3 1989 (1) SCR 560 referred to para 3 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 refer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.