Judgment Copy 1
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.B SINHA &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE LOKESHWAR SINGH PANDA
NARAYANAMOORTHY
Versus
STATE OF KARNADAKA & ANOTHER
Case No: criminal Appeal No. --- of 2008 [Arising Out Of s.l.p. (crl.) no.5689 of 2007]
Date Of Decision (dd/mm/yyyy):13/05/2008
Appearing Advocate(s)
For The Appellant: -------
For The Respondent: -------
Subject Index
Indian penal code, 1860 – section 304b, 498a - on appeal by the state, the division bench of the high court convicted a-1 for offences under sections 498a and 304b of ipc – hence this appeal by a-1 - it is proved on record that deceased b.v.d. m, father of deceased j, gifted a silver panchapatre and silver plate to a-1 at the time of performing customary thread changing ceremony in connection with birth of girl child and such ceremony is prevalent in their society. Such gifts are not enveloped within the ambit of ‘dowry'. it is also to be noticed that the high court on the same set of evidence has chosen to acquit a-3 (the mother of a-1), whose case is no better than that of a-1. Even the unproved allegations of ill-treatment, harassment and demand for dowry and the evidence led by the prosecution are similar to that led against a-3. Agree with the high court that the evidence against mother (a-3) is insufficient and inconsistent to convict her and, it is the same against a-1. This deficiency in the evidence proves fatal to the prosecution case. Even otherwise, mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to being in application of section 304b, ipc. it is to be established that ‘soon before death', deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for, or ‘in connection with demand for dowry'. in the afore-mentioned situation, the provisions of section 304b, ipc, and section 113b of the evidence act could not be attracted to hold a-1 guilty of the offence of dowry death and/or cruelty in terms of section 498a, ipc. the prosecution, therefore, must be held to have failed to establish any case against a-1 herein - it must be held that the evaluation of the findings recorded by the high court suffer from manifest error and improper appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, the judgment of the high court setting aside the order of acquittal of a-1 cannot be sustained - in the result, this appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. the judgment of the high court dated 05.12.2006 passed in criminal appeal no.903/2000 is set aside and the order of acquittal of a-1 recorded by the learned trial judge shall stand restored.
Judgment Copy 2
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.SADHASIVAM
NOORJAHAN
Versus
STATE REP.BY D.S.P
Case No: Criminal Appeal No.706 of 2008 (Arising out of slp (crl.) no. 3399 of 2007)
Date of Decision (dd/mm/yyyy):23/04/2008
Appearing Advocate(s)
For The Appellant: K. Ragendra chowdhary, Sr. Advocate, v. Ramasubramanian, Advocate.
For The Respondent: V.G. pragasam, S.J. Aristotle and Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Advocates.
Subject Index
Indian penal code, 1860 - section 498-a - appellant is a-7 - the marriage between a-1 and s (the deceased) took place on 22.4.2001. A-7 is the aunt of a-1 - so far as the present appellant is concerned, the evidence is inadequate to show that she was party to any demand for dowry. In fact, pw-1 stated that when she went to the place of her daughter appellant was present along with a-1 and a-2. The said a-1 demanded jewels and presentation of rs.5, 000/- for ramzan . She accepted that she told a-1 and a-2 that she will send the same within a week. The next statement of this witness is very significant. She (appellant) told that two months' time will be sufficient for offering the presentation. In other words, she did not make any demand for dowry. That aspect has been accepted by pw-1. Significantly, this witness in her cross examination had admitted that appellant is residing at Coimbatore for the last 35 years. She has categorically admitted that while she went to the house of her daughter, she (appellant) was not present; therefore, there is no evidence to show that appellant was either present when the demand was made or she herself made any demand - above being the position, the prosecution has failed to establish the accusations against the appellant. Therefore, her conviction cannot be maintained and is set aside. She was released on bail by order dated 22.2.2008. In view of the order of acquittal, bail bonds shall stand discharged - the appeal is allowed.
©copy right All rights reserved by mensprotection@2019 powered by TRANZ NETWORKZ