VIRENDRA KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 970 · Decided: 16-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VIRENDRA KUMAR 
v. 
STATEOFU.P. 
JANUARY 16, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-s. 306-Conviction under on presumption under 
Section 113-A of Evidence Act-Jn absence of specific charge thereunder-
Propriety of-Held: Such conviction was permissible-Even in absence of 
C presumption in terms of s. 113-A, the circumstances of the case were 
relatable to s. 306-Evidence Act, 1872-s 113-A-Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973-ss. 222(2) and 464. 
Appellant-accused with another co-accused (his father) wa.s charged 
fl of having caused death of his wife (deceased). Appellant, after his marriage 
with the deceased used to humiliate the deceased and her family members 
for bringing inadequate dowry and for being of dark complexion. They had 
also publicly abused the informant-PW-1 and the same was witnessed by 
many PWs. On the date of event PW 1 got an information that the deceased 
E 
had committed suicide. PW-1 seeing several injuries on the body of the 
deceased inferred she was done to death by the appellant in conspiracy with 
his elder brother. Complaint was lodged by him. Prior to this report the co-
accused had given an information that the deceased had committed suicide 
by hang~ng. Doctor noted major injuries on the body of the deceased. 
During trial incriminating materials relating to torture, harassment and 
F 
demand of dowry were brought to the notice of appellant during his 
examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Neighbours of the appellant also 
deposed th&t appellant used to beat his wife. Trial Court convicted both the 
accused under Section 302 IPC. In appeal, High Court set aside the 
conviction under Section 302 and convicted the accused under Section 306 
G 
IPC on presumption in terms of s. 113-A of Evidence Act. Co-accused had 
died during pendency of appeal before High Court. 
H 
In appeal to this Court, the question for determination was whether 
the High Court was correct in convicting the accused under Section 306 
IPC in absence of specific charge thereunder. 
970 
-
'/ 
I 
VIRENDRA KUMAR v. STA TE 
971 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Even without reference to Section l 13A of the Evidence Act 
the prosecution version has been established. So far as the question as to 
the effect of no charge having been framed under Section 306 is concerned 
the effect of Section 222(2) and Section 464 of Cr. P.C. cannot be lost sight 
of. [Paras 17 & 12) [978-B, 975-E] 
Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P, [2004) 5 SCC 334, relied on. 
Shamnsaheb M Multtani v. State of Karnataka, [2001) 2 SCC 577, 
referred to. 
2. The circumstances are relatable to Section 306 IPC which were 
clearly put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 
A 
B 
c 
. Cr.P.C. The incriminating materials relating to torture, harassment and 
demand of dowry were specifically brought to the notice of the appellant 
D 
during such examination. [Paras 14 & 15] (977-C-E] 
3. In support of his stand, the appellant pleaded that deceased had 
committed suicide and for this purpose one witness DWI was examined. It 
was specifically stated by him that the appellant's father had asked him to 
inform PW2 that the deceased had committed suicide and accordingly he 
had informed PW2. Even in the absence of a presumption in terms of 
Section 113-A of the Evidence Act it is to be noted that the prosecution 
version was specific to the extent that the deceased was being taunted by 
the appellant for not bringing adequate dowry and/or being of dark 
complexion. The humiliation and harassment meted out was described by 
the deceased when she had gone to her maternal uncle's house. The 
evidence of neighbour of the accused-appellant clearly stated that the 
appellant used to beat his wife i.e. deceased and on the night of occurrence, 
E 
F 
when he was sitting on his roof-top he had heard cries of the deceased being 
beaten, went to the house of the appellant and he was turned away by the 
G 
appellant who said that it was their internal affair and he should mind his 
own work. To similar effect was the evidence of PW4- another neighbour. 
The doctor who conducted the autopsy i.e. PW6, had noted many major 
injuries in different parts of body including one mark on the neck. 
[Paras 16 & 17] [977-E-H, 978-A-B] 
H 
~ 
' 
CJ72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R. 
f 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE WRlSDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 
.; 
,.. 
2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 30.9.2005 of the Hi

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