STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAMANAND

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 981 · Decided: 11-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 981 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
RAM ANAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2008) 
APRIL ll, 2017 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss. 302, 201 and 306 - Death of wife and daughter of the c 
respondent-accused due to burn injuries - Report thereof Ext. D-1 
was lodged by the respondent-accused to the Police stating that the 
deceased committed suicide - Thereafter brother of the deceased-
wife lodged a written Report (Ext P-2) that she was harassed for 
dowry - After post-mortem Medical Board opined that cause of 
death to be Asphyxia due to strangulation and that burns were post-
D 
mortem in nature - Charge-sheets were filed ulss. 498A, 302134, 
201 against the respondent-accused, his mother and brother, while 
other three bro_thers were charged uls. 20l/5 ll !PC - Trial court 
convicted the respondent-accused only u/s. 302 and 201 and 
acquitted the other accused of all the charges - High Court altered 
E 
the conviction of respondent-accused uls. 306 - On appeal, held: 
In view of medical evidence, the deaths could not be termed as 
suicide, hence conviction u/s. 306 not justified - Prosecution case 
was based on circumstantial evidence - The absence of evidence 
regarding dowry or related harassment nullifies the motive - Even 
if circumstances emerging from Ext. D-1 is taken against the 
F 
respondent-accused, that by itself without any connecting material 
is not sufficient to bring home the case against respondent-accused -
However strong the suspicion be, the respondent is entitled to benefit 
of doubt and cannot be convicted uls. 302. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s. 162 - Statement made under - Reliance on - Held: s.162 
governs only the cases where statements are made to police "in the 
course of an investigation" under Chapter XII. 
981 
G 
H 
982 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Constitution of India: 
B 
Ari. 136 - Jurisdiction under - Scope of - Held: Powers of 
Supreme Court in appeals fl led u/ Art. 13 6 are not restricted by the 
appellate provisions enumerated under Cr.PC. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The medical evidence on record is very clear 
and precise that deaths were as a result of strangulation, and not 
as a result of burn injuries. They died of strangulation aPd their 
bodies were sought to be set afire in order to create an impression 
as if they had died of burn injuries. The finding by the trial court 
C was therefore completely correct. It is impossible to assume how 
the deceased could have strangulated herself and then attempted 
to set herself afire. The view taken by the High Court is, therefore, 
wholly unjustified. Consequently there could not have been 
conviction of the respondent under Section 306 IPC. [Para 9] (988-
D A-C] 
2.1 The fact that the deaths arc as a result of culpable 
homicide is beyond any doubt. The entire case of the prosecution 
on this count, rests purely on circumstantial evidence. It is true 
that the deaths have occurred in a room occupied by the 
E 
respondent along with wife, and daughter. But no witness has 
been examined to suggest that the respondent was at or around 
his residence at the relevant time. The marriage was more than 
10 years old and as such no statutory presumption on any count 
could be drawn, more particularly, when none of the prosecution 
witnesses had supported the case of prosecution as regards 
F 
demands of dowry and harassment. Apart from strangulation 
marks nothing was found in the post-mortem report regarding 
any other bodily injury. The absence of any evidence as !'egards 
dowry or related harassment also nullifies the element of 
presence of any motive on part of the respondent. None of the 
G prosecution witnesses alleged anything against the respondent 
nor are there any other supporting circumstances such as 
discovery of any relevant fact. [Para 10][988-C-F] 
2.2 Ext. D-1 which was the reporting made by the 
respondent, undoubtedly shows that the respondent him&elf had 
H opened the door and found the bodies of the deceased lying with 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAMANAND 
983 
IllJUnes. In the face of Ext.D-1 it is not possible to accept the A 
assertion that the door was locked from inside and was pushed 
open by PW7 and others. Locking of door from inside would 
have been consistent with the theory of suicide but that th~ory 
stood demolished as a result of medical evidence.[Para 11)(988-
G-H; 989-A] 
B 
2.3 It cannot be said that in view

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