Criminal Appeal No. 1181 OF 2011
Section 302, 34 and 498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The appellant, in the present case, was accused number 1 before the Trial Court. Accused no. 2 to 4 was his parents and brother, all together were prosecuted with the offence under section 302 read with Section 34 and section 498Aof the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the decision by the Trial Court, all the accused in this case were convicted for the offence arraigned with. On appeal by the appellant and other accused before the High Court, the accused nos.2 and 4 were acquitted of the offence, and also the appellant was acquitted from the offence under section 498A. However, the High Court by an impugned order convicted the appellant under section 302 of IPC but was not read with Section 34 of the penal code.
In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellant and other accused were charged with the offence of murdering appellant’s wife. The complaint was lodged by the deceased’s father in whom it was alleged that the marriage of the appellant and deceased took place two years ago as per the custom and in dowry Half-tola gold remained to be provided. Due to meagerness, the deceased’s father could not dispense the left Half-tola gold. For the first eight months, the deceased was treated well by the appellant’s family, but three months before the incident, the deceased told Complainant and his wife that she was being tortured and assaulted. Also, she was pressurized to bring Half-tola gold, dresses and ₹5000 for Bakery Business. She was not being provided with food and was given murder threats if the demands of the accused not fulfilled. So the deceased decided to stay with his father for two months.
No one from the family of the appellant came to visit her or receive her. The mal-treatment the deceased was going through, she disclosed to father’s sister. Complainant’s sister convinced the deceased and accompanied her back to the deceased’s house. Eight Days before the offence, the accused went to Complainant’s sister house and asked her for remaining dowry. On March 10th, 2005, Complainant received information on the phone that the deceased is serious and admitted in the hospital at Naldurg. After the investigation was done and charge-sheet was filed, and charges were framed as stated. In the evidence from a doctor, it was clearly stated that the deceased was throttled and strangulated to death and supported the case of murder. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to submit the guilt of the accused nos. Two and no.4 in the present case and submitted before the court that the deceased has taken her own life. Also stated the reason for taking her own life was because, in 2 years of her marriage, she was not blessed with a child and in frustration deceased took this step and committed the suicide. Trial Court was of the view that circumstances proved to be against the appellant. Other accused on the grounds of motive, custodial death of the deceased, Non-disclosure of death of deceased by the appellant to Complainant, false evidence of accused of hanging, inquest and spot punchnama which led the Trial court to decision of convicting appellant and other accused in the case. On the other hand, High Court acquitted the other accused because being stated marriage as happy marriage by Complainant and appellant was acquitted of section 498A of Penal code. In the impugned order appellant was convicted under section 302 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860, because there were injuries found on the deceased body and the time of death, was 3:30 am where the only appellant and deceased were present in the room where the incident took place and leading to the custodial death of deceased.
The Supreme Court in the following Case observed in the present case. It was also of view like the Courts lower concerned that the cause of death of deceased is not because of suicide, but it was death due to throttling and strangulation as per the post-mortem report given by the doctor, and they termed it as homicidal death. And the room in the house of the appellant where the incident took place height was 5 feet and 10 inches, and it is not feasible for human of normal to commit suicide by hanging in the room of that height. Also before the court, medical practitioner stated that while conducting the post-mortem report they noticed injuries at the head and back of the deceased and there were marks due to strangulation on deceased’s neck which indicated that it was murder and not suicide.
The apex court in the present case held that there was no merit in the appeal, and it is dismissed. As the appellant had been released on bail, shall be cancelled and the appellant to be taken into the custody to complete the remaining sentence.
Clause (4) of the Constitutional 39th Amendment Act, 1975
Section 28(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, Section 94 of the RP Act Section 28(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, Section 94 of the RP Act