LexSUKHRAM versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SUKHRAM v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AUGUST 17, 2007 [C.K. THAKKERAND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 201, 302, 304-B, 498-A rlw Section 34/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 222, 313 and 464: C Dowry death-A,ccused-husband in collusion with his father allegedly • harassed his wife for demand of dowry, committed her murder and thrown her dead body in a well-FJR-lnvestigation-Charge-sheet-Trial Court found both the accused guilty of committing offences punishable u!s. 304-B and 498-A r!w Section 34 JPC-Setting aside the conviction of both the accused D u!s. 304-B, 498-A rlw Section 34 !PC, High Court found both the accused guilty of committing offences punishable u!Ss. 302° and 201 rlw Section 34 !PC and sentenced them accordingly-On appeal, Held: Though charge for committing offence punishable u!s. 302 framed against accused, A-1 but no such charge framed against accused A-2-0nly charge proved against A-2 was for offence punishable u!s. 201 !PC-Though the Courts are empowered E u!s. 222 Cr.P.C. to convict a person for committing an offence which is minor in comparison to the one for which he is charged and tried-By no stretch of imagination, offences ulSs. 304B and 498-A !PC for which A-2 was convicted by trial Court could be said to be minor offences in comparison to the offence punishable u!s.201 !PC for which A-1 was charged-Hence, S?ction 222 F Cr.P.C. not attracted-Besides, conviction of A-2 u!s. 302 !PC by High Court cannot held to be correct when tested in the touchstone of the provisions contained uls.464(2)(a) Cr.P.C.-And also on proven facts on record, conviction u!s.302 not made out-Hence conviction and sentencing of appellant A-2 u!s. 302 !PC cannot be sustained and thus set aside. G Section 201 !PC-Disappearance of evidence-Involvement of accused H A-2, father in the offence committed by his son, accused A-I-Held: Mere suspicion is not sufficient, there must be cogent evidence to prove that the accused know/had information sufjicient to lead him to believe that offence committed and he had caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen 44 + SUKHRAM v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 45 the offender-Since ihere was no eyewitness in the present case, conclusion A had to be drawn from circumstantial evidence-The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt has to be drawn not only requires to be fully established but should also be conclusive in nature and consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused-Thus, evidence has to be carefully scrutinized- Merely because A-2 is the father of A-1, it cannot be presumed as a matter B of legal proof that he deemed to have knowledge of the offence committed. by his son A-I-Even believing the evidence of PW2, though the said witness declared hostile, mere presence of A-2 in the house is not sufficient to draw a presumption of having knowledge of commission of offence by his son A- l-Prosecution has failed to establish charges against A-2 for committing the offence uls. 201 /PC-Hence, conviction and sentence of A-2 for committing C the offences punishable u/s. 201 cannot be sustained and, thus, set aside. Marriage between accused-appellant A-1 and the deceased was solemnized on 21st April, 1986. Allegedly, her husband had been harassing her for demand of more and more dowry and A-2, father-in-law of the deceased desired to have illicit relationship with her, which she resisted. She had been D complaining to her parents, brother and other relatives about the ill treatment made out to her by her in-laws. On 18th February, 1987, the deceased was reported to be missing. Later, her dead body was found in a well A-2 registered a report at the police station. The Police started investigation and sent the dead body for post mortem. In the meantime, PW-6, father of the deceased E also lodged a complaint at the police station, suspecting that his daughter had been killed by her husband, A-1 in collusion with his father, A-2 and her dead body thrown by them in the well. Post mortem report revealed that death was caused by asphyxia due to throttling and smothering and not due to drowning. On the basis of the post mortem report and after collecting evidence, an FIR was registered by the Police against the accused persons F under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and both the accused were arrested. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.