VIKAS versus STA TE OF RAJAS THAN

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 02-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

·' 
VIKAS 
A 
v. 
STA TE OF RAJAS THAN 
AUGUST 2, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH, BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH AND H.K.SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, I 860 : Sections 302 rlw I 20-B, 304-B, 364 and 498: 
Murder-Wife tortured and murdered by husband for not bringing adequate 
dowry--CoTIViction of husband and her parents-High Court maintained the C 
conviction-Appreciation of circumstantial evidence by High Court-
Correctness of-Held, High Court has not commi(ted any error in appreciating 
the evidence adduced in proof of circumstances connecting the accused with 
the crime though, it is not necessary for it to re-appreciate the evidence--
Evidence Act, I 872-Circumstantial evidence. 
According to the prosecution, accused-appellant had allegedly tortured 
his wife for not bringing adequate dowry, so she came to her parents' house. 
On the fateful day, accused picked his wife from the residence of PW3, a 
relative of the deceased, and allegedly murdered her by drowning in a river. 
On the next day, PWI O, brother of the deceased, went to the house of accused 
D 
for delivering medicines as she was under treatment, but accused refused to E 
accept medicines on the ground that she was not at home. Parents of the 
deceased carried out search for the deceased but it was of no avail and an FIR 
was lodged against the accused, his parents and two married sisters for 
harassment During investigation, dead body and also ornaments of the victim 
were recovered at the instance of accused-husband. Trial Court convicted the F 
accused-husband for offences under Sections 302, 364, 498A and 304-B IPC 
and his parents were convicted for offences under Sections 364, 302, 498A 
and 304-B IPC, however acquitted his sisters. On appeal, High Court 
maintained the convictions of accused under Sections 302 and 498A but set 
aside conviction under Section 304-B and 384 IPC. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that High Court has omitted to consider 
material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.; that when the deceased was 
driven out of the house there was no necessity of accused bringing the 
deceased back t'! his house; that there was nothing on record to establish 
435 
G 
H 
436 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2002) SUPP. 1. S.C.R. 
A that accused had gone to the house of PW3 to pick up the deceased; that there 
was no evidence on record that motor bike used by the accused was in working 
condition and belonged to him; and that the recovery of various articles at the 
instance of accused was not reliable. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Neither the High Court nor trial Court committed any error 
in relying upon the evidence of prosecution-witnesses for arriving at the 
conclusion that appellant had taken away the deceased from the house of PW3 
and thereafter on the next day when PWlO ,brother of the deceased, went to 
C the house of appellant, she was not found and a false statement was made by 
the accused that he had not taken away the deceased, with him. (441-F) 
1.2. The dead body of the deceased was re~overed at the instance of 
accused-husband on the basis of his disclosure statement while he was in 
custody, which is proved by the evidence of PW18, Dy. S.P. who has stated 
D that accused led the police party to the place from where he pushed the 
deceased in the river and they found the dead-body which was that of deceased. 
This discovery of the dead-body at the instance of accused is most relevant 
circumstance in the instant case. (441-G-H; 442-A) 
1.3. Post-mortem examination report is proved by PW14, one of the 
E Members of the Medical Board constituted for carrying out the post-mortem. 
(442-B) 
1.4. At the instance of accused ornaments were also found in the safe 
of almirah from his room. PW8 has proved the recovery of these ornaments 
F and also one saree from another almirah from the house of the accused. PWll, 
Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, has deposed about the identification of the 
ornaments by PW3 and PWlO. Further, the High Court has rightly relied 
upon the recovery of golden chain, which deceased was wearing when she had 
gone to the house of PW3. The said article was recovered at the instance of 
accused from his house. This incriminating circumstance certainly points 
G out the guilt of the accused; otherwise the golden chain would not have been 
found from the almirah but it would have been on the dead lbody •. From the 
aforesaid evidence, it is clear that there are no material cont"adi~fi;;;;.in 

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