STATE OF KARNATAKA versus SMT. SUVARNAMMA & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 778 · Decided: 14-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
[2014] 10 S.CR. 778 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
SMT. SUVARNAMMA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 785 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 14, 2014 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 498-A and 304-B - Dowry death 
C caused by bum injuries - Allegation that victim-deceased was 
harassed by accused husband and in-laws on account of 
dowry - Mother-in-law poured kerosene on the deceased and 
ignited the fire - Deceased was taken to hospital by the 
mother-in-law - Trial Court convicted the accused rejecting 
o the plea that prosecution had withheld the dying declaration 
that the deceased had caught fire accidentally - High Court 
reversed the decision of trial court - Appeal against acquittal 
- Held: Death of the deceased was within 7 years of marriage 
and she was subjected to harassment for dowry soon before 
E her death - The death was in circumstances other than natural 
- Mere lapse of investigating agency could not be enough to 
throw out overwhelming evidence clearly establishing the 
case of the prosecution - Inmates of the house cannot get 
away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on 
F the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case 
lies upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an 
accused to offer any explanation -
Case against accused 
stood established - Dowry Prohibition Act - ss.3, 4 and 6. 
Criminal trial: False plea by accused - Held: Can be 
G taken as additional circumstance against the accused. 
H 
Investigation: Faulty investigation - Held: Suppression 
or unfair conduct of the investigating agency would not 
778 
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SUVARNAMMA 
779 
absolve the Court of its duty to find out the truth - Penal Code, 
A 
1860. 
Appeal against acquittal: Held: In appeal against the 
acquittal, if a possible view has been taken, no interference 
is required, but if the view taken is not legally sustainable, the 
B 
Court has ample powers to interfere with the order of acquittal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the absence of direct evidence, the 
circumstantial evidence can be the basis of conviction if C 
the circumstances are of conclusive nature and rule out 
all reasonable possibilities of accused being innocent. 
Once the prosecution probabilises the involvement of the 
accused but the accused takes a false plea, such false 
plea can be taken as an additional circumstance against 
D 
the accused. Though Article 20(3) of the Constitution 
incorporates the rule against self incrimination, the scope 
and the content of the said rule does not require the 
Court to ignore the conduct of the accused in not 
correctly disclosing the facts within his knowledge. It is 
E 
/ also well settled that though the investigating agency is 
expected to be fair and efficient, any lapse on its part 
cannot per se be a ground to throw out the prosecution 
case when there is overwhelming evidence to prove the 
offence. [para 12, 13] [786-E-H; 787-A] 
F 
2. It was held in *State of Rajasthan vs. Jaggu Ram that 
where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy 
inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case 
would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the 
nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish 
G 
the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required 
in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden 
would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of 
Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a 
corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to 
H 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was 
committed. Admittedly, the marriage of the deceased took 
place within seven years of her death. Her death was by 
burn injuries. There was evidence of demand of dowry 
soon before the death. [Paras 14, 15] [807-B-C-G-H] 
B 
3. Merely showing that the prosecution withheld 
dying declaration (Exhibit D-7) could not be a ground for 
the Court not finding out the cause of death from the 
material on record and inferring that the death was 
C accidental. Once dying declaration (Exhibit D-7) was 
produced even by defence, the Court has to go into the 
authenticity of two rival versions in the dying 
declarations. It was required to be ascertained whether 
(Exhibit D-7) was a genuine and reliable dying declaration 
or the oral dying declarations made before PW-1, PW-3, 
D PW-4, PW-5, PW-8, PW-14, PW-15 and PW-16 were more 
reliable in the circumstances on record. T

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