LexSTATE OF U.P. versus ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
_>.
"" ,
~
I
-4'
STAlE OF U.P.
v.
ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JANUARY 14, 1992
[A. M. AHMADI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 34 (Occurrence prior to
insertion of Section 304-B ).
Dowry death-Accused-Husband, his father and sister-Conviction
by Trial Court-Re-evaluation and Re-appreciation of evidence by the High
Court-Reversal of conviction order and acquittal of accused by High
Courl-Held High Court's order resulted in misca"iage of justice and is
liable to be set aside.
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 13~cope of
Murder-Conviction by Trial Court-On appeal acquittal by High
Courl--Appeal against acquittal order--'-l'ower of Supreme Court to appre-
ciate evidence and interfere with acquittal order-Held Supreme Court can
interfere with acquittal order if High Court's order has resulted in miscar-
riage of justice.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 3.
Circumstantial evidence-Appreciation and evaluation of-Court must
adopt a cautious approach-Conviction should be recorded only if all the
links in the chain of evidence fully establish the hypothesis of guilt of the
accused-But prosecution is not bound to meet any and every hypothesis put
forward by accused however far{etched and fanciful it might be.
Respondent, A, was married to M, daughter of PW2, at Banaras on
13th May, 1973. Subsequent to their marriage A, who was serving as
Assistant Engineer, was transferred to Lucknow where he hired a two-
room first floor apartment for his residence. The ground floor of the
house was occupied by the sons of the landlord, PWs 1 and 4. It was
alleged that A, his father and sister were not satisfied with the sufficiency
of the· dowry and therefore all the three were taunting, tormenting and
t,orturing M. During one of their visits to Banaras the question of dowry
was once again raised when A's father and sister misbehaved with M
37
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1992) 1 S.C.R.
A
and her father and stated that they won't allow M to live with A unless
'r
dowry was made good. When there was a heated argument, A returned
to Lucknow without M. M entreated her father-in-law to permit her to
join A at Lucknow but the latter refused saying that she will have to rot
at Banaras alone unless the dowry amount was made good. Ignoring her
father-in-law's refusal M went to Lucknow to join her husband. On
B
coming to know that M had gone to Lucknow A's father and sister
followed her to Lucknow and all the three quarrelled and beat M. On
that very night they sprinkled kerosene on M and set her ablaze.
Thereafter, all the three accused came out of the room shouting 'fire-
·,I
fire'. On hearing the shouts PWs 1 and 4 came out of their house and
saw that while M was in flames all the three accused were standing in the
)
:4,_
c
verandah talking to each other and were unconcerned about her plight.
None of accused made any effort to extinguish the flames or to rescue
her. PW 1 called the fire brigade and PW 3, a fireman, took M to the
hospital where she was declared dead. On coming to know of the
incident, PW 2, M's father lodged the FIR and all the three accused were
D
prosecuted for murder.
Relying upon the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 and other circum-
stances of the case the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the charge
agains~ all the three accused was made out by prosecution beyond
...
reasonable doubt. Accordingly the Trial Court convicted them under
E
sections 302134 and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. The
Trial Court also rejected the theory of accidental death of M.
The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court which on
re-evaluation and re-appreciation of the evidence agreed with the Trial
Court that the presence of PWs 1 and 4 on the scene of occurrence was
F
probable and natural but suspected the trustworthiness of their evi-
dence. Accordingly, it allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction
-~
order by holding that the evidence did not disclose the involvement of the
....(
accused and that in all probability the deceased M committed suicide.
The state preferred an appeal before this Court challenging the
G
High Court's decision.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD : 1. . While appreciating circumstantial evidence the court
must adopt a very cautious approach and should record a conviction
H
only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the
L Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.