STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD ETC. ETC. versus DILIP NATHUMAL CHORDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 08-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD ETC. ETC. 
v. 
DILIP NATHUMAL CHORDIA & ANR. 
FEBRUARY 8, 1989 
IB.C. RAY AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: ss. 227 & 228: Sessions Judge 
framing charge and making order in support thereof-High Court 
whether has jurisdiction to interfere-Law must be allowed to take its 
own course unless glaring injustice found. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304B & 498A-Dowry offence-
All round attempt to cover up by family members than to expose it-
Necessity for investigating agency to penetrate every dark corner and 
collect all evidence-Courts to display greater sensibility to criminality 
• and avoid soft justice. 
o· 
The deceased was seen in flames on the first floor of her in-laws 
house crying for help within five days of her marriage with the younger 
brother of the respondent. While neighbours rushed to her rescue and 
extinguished the flames, the inmates of the house did not render any 
such help. The respondent who was on the flrst floor was seen coming 
E 
down the stairs. The deceased succumbed to the buru injuries in the 
hospital on the same day. In her dying declaration recorded by the 
Executive Magistrate, she stated that when she was preparing tea in the 
F 
G 
kitchen her saree caught fire accidently. 
· 
The parents of the deceased suspected foul play by her in-laws and 
lodged a report with the police. An investigation.of the case revealed 
that the deceased had met hostile atmosphere soon after her marriage. 
The parents gave statements that the in-laws demanded unreasonable 
dowry which could not be complied with and that at the wedding cere-
mony they had behaved badly on the payment of insufficient dowry. 
Her brother who had gone to bring her back home was not permitted to 
meet her. The maid servant sent along with her was also sent back. 
The respondent and his father were charge sheeted under s. 306 
read withs. 34 I.P.C. The trial court came to a prima fade conclusion 
that it was not a suicide but homicidal death. Accordingly, a charge 
under s. 302 I.P .C. was framed against the respondent. The respon-
H dent's father was, however, discharged. 
560 
,. 
. . 
) 
---r 
·' 
STREE ATYACHAR v. D.N. CHORDIA 
561 
The High Court dismissed the revision petition of the State against 
the respondent's father. While accepting the respondent's revision it 
took the view that the fact that the accused was passive was of no 
consequence that it all depends upon the mental response and reaction 
of an individual whether he faces the risk and attempts to extinguish the 
flames or quietly watches the incident, that it does not show that the 
accused actively committed the act of burning or actively added the 
commission of suicide, and held that the charge under s. 302 against 
him was not made out, and there was not even a case against him to 
frame charge under s. 306 I.P.C. 
The appellant, a social welfare organisation and the State prefer-
red appeals to the Supreme Court. 
On the question: Whether the High Court was justified in 
interfering with the charge framed by the trial court against the respon-
dent, and whether it was necessary to put his father also on trial with 
the material on record. 
Partly allowing the criminal appeals, 
HELD: l. The High Court was not justified in interfering 
with the charge framed by the trial court against . the respondent 
accused. 
2. The trial court had considered every material on recqrd in 
support of the charge framed. It had also given reasons why a charge 
under s. 302 I.P.C. was warranted against the respondent even though 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
the police had charge-sheeted him under s. 306 I.P.C. Section 227 
Cr.P.C. which confers power to discharge an accused was designed to 
prevent harassment to an innocent person by the arduous trial or the 
F 
ordeal of prosecution. The power has been entrusted to the Sessions 
Judge who brings to bear his knowledge and experience in criminal 
trials. If he after hearing the parties frames a charge and also makes an 
order in support thereof, the law must be allowed to take its own 
course. 
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, [1978] l SCR 257 and ·union of 
India v. Prafulla Kumar Sama/ & Anr., [1979] 2 SCR .229 at 234-35, 
referred to. 
G 
3. Self restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule 
unless there is glaring injustice staring the Court in the face. In the 
H 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1989] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
instant case, it had discharged the

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