LexSYED HAKKIM AND ANR versus STATE REP. BY DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2009] 2 S.C.R. 1060 SYED HAKKIM AND ANR. \!. STATE REP. BY DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF PbLICE, KARUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU Criminal Appeal No. 365 Of 2009 FEBRUARY 23, 2009 .[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 498A - Death of wife - · Allegedly due to strangulation- by husband and in-f.aws on C account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand - Conviction by Courts below under ss. 302 and 498A, on basis of circumstantial evidence - Held: No infirmity in conclusion of Courts below that dowry demand was made, particularly in view of evidence of prosecution witnesses - Conviction in terms of D s. 498A confirmed - However, as circumstances highlighted by prosecution to bring in application of s.302 /PC were · insufficient and scanty, conviction under s. 302 set aside - Crime against Women. · E Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation pf. According to the prosecution, the husband and· the in-laws of PW1 's daughter strangulated her to death as their dowry demand was not met Both the Trial Court and the High Court convicted the husband and the brother- . in-law of the deceased Le. the appellants utider ss.302 and F. 498A IPC. Hence the present appeal. · Partly allowing the app~al, the. C::ourt HELD:1. Both the· trial 'Court and the High Court having regard to the evidence of relatives concluded that G the dowry demand was made. There is no infirmity with the conclusions arrived at more particularly in view of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and therefore there is no scope for interference with the conclusions relating to Section 498-A IPC. [Para 6] [1066-C-D] H 1060 ''t-'( \ ·--r SYED HAKKIM .AND ANR. V. STATE REP. BY DY. SUP. 1061 OF POLICE, KARUR DIST., TAMIL NADU 2.1. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial A evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found · to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or. the guilt of any other person. The circumstances .from which an inference as to the guilt of the ac~used. is drawn B have to. be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to. be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact . sought to be inferred. from those circumstances. '.[Para 8] .. [1066-E~G] 2.2. In. the present ca~e, the circumstances high- C lighted by the prosecution to bring in application of Section. 302 IPC are insufficient and scanty. That being so, the conviction as recorded in terms.of Section 302 IPC cannot be maintained and !s set.aside. [Para 17] [1070-B-C] , Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977) SC 1063; Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR (1956) SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka AIR (1983) SC 446; State D of UP. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR (1987) SC 350 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. AIR (1989) SC 1890; Bhagat Ram E v. State of Punjab AIR (1954) SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors .. v. State of AP. (1996) 10 SCC 193; Pada/a Veera Reddy v . . S.tate of A.P. and Ors. AIR (1990). SC 79; State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (1992) Cr/. LJ 1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh .AIR (1952) F SC 343 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR (1984) SC 1622; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180; State otHaryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. (2003) 11 SCC 261; Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.18512005 disposed of on 7.7.2008 - relied on. G Circumstantial Evidence by Alfred Wills - referred to. 3. In the ultimate result, the conviction in terms of Section 302 is set aside while that under Section 498A stands confirmed. [Para 17] (1070-D] H ~ r;: 1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 2 S.C.R. A Case Law Reference t_. ... AIR (1977) SC 1063 relied on Para 8 ·~ AIR (1956) SC 316 relied on Para 8 B AIR (1983) SC 446 relied on Para 8 AIR 1985 SC 1224 relied on Para 8 AIR (1987) SC 350 relied on Para 8 AIR (1989) SC 1890 relied on· Para 8 't-- ~ c AIR (1954) SC 621 relied on Para 8 (1996) 10 sec 193 relied on Para 9 AIR (1990) SC 79 relied on Para 10 D (1992) Crl. LJ 1104 relied on Para 11 .. AIR (1952) SC 343 relied on Para 14 4 AIR (1984) SC 1622 relied on Para 15 (2003) a sec 1 ao relied on Para 16 E •• 1 (2003) 11 sec 251 relied on Para 16 ,_ CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.