LexTULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 1083 TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 507 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 14, 2012. [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) PENAL CODE, 1860: B ss. 302134, 304-8134 and 498-A/34 - Murder of a married c woman in matrimonial home, for dowry - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by trial court to all the three accused, namely, the husband of deceased and his parents, affirmed by High Court - SLP of husb5md already dismissed - Appeal by his parents 0 - Held: Medical evidence supported prosecution case - 1//- treatment meted out to deceased by all the three accused established - Recoveries proved - The circumstances constitute a chain even stronger than an eye-witness account and, therefore, conviction of appellants is fully justified - E Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 106 and 114. The appellants-couple and their son (A-3) were prosecuted for ill-treating their daughter-in-law, the wife of A-3, for not fulfilling their demand of dowry, and for committing her murder by drowning her into a well after F tying her hands and feet. The trial court convicted all the three accused u/ss 302/34, 304-8134 and 498-A/34 and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. The High Court upheld the judgment. The SLP filed by A-3 was dismissed. G Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is not in dispute that the conviction of 1083 H 1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A the appellants (A-1 and A-2) is based on circumstantial evidence. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's case*, this Court after referring to various earlier decisions, formulated the conditions to be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established B based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 4-5) (1090-D-E] *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, 1985 (1) SCR 88 = (1984) 4 sec 116 - relied on 1.2 In the instant case, the first circumstance relied c upon by the prosecution is that all the three accused ill- treated the deceased. A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 (father of the deceased) shows that his daughter was treated well only for a period of 5 months from the date of her marriage and thereafter, all of the accused started 0 ill-treating her by way of beating and by not providing sufficient food. He also stated that A-3, who at the relevant time was employed as a driver, on the instigation of A-1 and A-2, was demanding Rs.50,000/- for purchase of a jeep. PW-2, who acted as the mediator in the marriage of the deceased with A3, lodged the complaint (Exh. 26) and E explained about the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased at her matrimonial home. It was he who intimated the police that the dead body of the deceased was seen floating in the well. He stated that all the 3 accused were living together and his house was at a F distance of 2 kms. away from their house. He also stated that all the accused used to demand Rs.50,000/- from the · deceased and they also used to beat and abuse her. From the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it is clearly established that all the 3 accused ill-treated the deceased. (Para 9-11) G (1092-D-E, H; 1093-A-B, C-E] 1.3 The second circumstance heavily relied on by the prosecution is the distance between the house of the accused and the well wherein the body of the deceased H was found to be floating. It was PW-2, who first noticed the dead body of the deceased in the well and filed a TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v. 1085 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA complaint to the police. He stated that A-3 along with A another came to his house and reported about missing of the deceased and enquired about her. Thereafter, PW- 2, along with others, started searching her for the whole night. He also stated that when he attempted to go near the well, the accused prevented him from doing so. It was B only on the next day, when PW-2 carried out further search for the deceased, that he came to know from his nephew that the body of the deceased was found lying in the well and after seeing the dead body he filed a complaint to the police. The assertion of PW-2 that he was c prevented from going to the side of the well by the accused fully establishes another circumstance which shows that all the accused were responsible for the death of the deceased. Further, without the support and assistance of A-1 and A-2, it would not be possible for A3 0 alon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.