| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/669242 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | May-06-2009 |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2003 |
| Judge | Arijit Pasayat and; Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ. |
| Reported in | JT2009(14)SC97; 2010(1)KarLJ244; 2009(8)SCALE820; (2009)7SCC246 |
| Acts | Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 306 and 498A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 378(1) and 378(3) |
| Appellant | Shindhu and ors. |
| Respondent | State of Karnataka |
| Appellant Advocate | G.V. Chandrashekhar,; N.K. Verma and; P.P. Singh, Advs |
| Respondent Advocate | Anil Kr. Mishra, ; Sanjay R. Hegde and ; A. Rohan Singh |
| Disposition | Appeal allowed |
| Prior history | From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2002 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. A. No. 348/1997 |
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890. sections 498-a & 306 r/w section 34: [dr. arijit pasayat & a.k. ganguly, jj] a-1 to a-5 (father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively) alleged to have meted out cruelty to deceased abetting her to commit suicide high court in appeal against their acquittal by impugned judgment convicted the accused under sections 498-a & 306 r/w. section 34 - no circumstance was indicated by high court to connect the appellants (a-2, a-4 and a-5) with alleged crime - a-1 (father-in-law) died during pendency of appeal and slp filed by a-3 (husband) was dismissed held, conviction of a-2, a-4 and a-5 (mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law) cannot be sustained. sections 498-a & 306: cruelty -deceased committed suicide by jumping into well - no material on record to establish connection of accused, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, with alleged offence held, accused are entitled to acquittal. - a-1 is the father-in-law, a-2 is the mother-in-law, a-3 is husband, a-4 is the brother-in-law and a-5 is the sister-in-law of sharada (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). 3. it was the prosecution version that because of the cruelty, the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well. the trial court had referred to the evidence elaborately to conclude that prosecution has failed to prove its case.arijit pasayat, j.1. heard.2. challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned single judge at karnataka high court upholding the conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under sections 498a and 306 read with section 34 of the indian penal code, 1860 (in short 'ipc'). learned principal sessions judge, bijapur had directed acquittal of the five accused persons. a-1 is the father-in-law, a-2 is the mother-in-law, a-3 is husband, a-4 is the brother-in-law and a-5 is the sister-in-law of sharada (hereinafter referred to as the deceased).3. it was the prosecution version that because of the cruelty, the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well. the trial court on consideration of the evidence on record came to hold that accusations have not been established. an appeal was filed by the state under section 378(1) and (3) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short the code). the high court set aside the impugned judgment of the trial court and recorded conviction in terms of sections 498a and 306 read with section 34 of the ipc.4. during the pendency of the appeal before the high court a-1 died. the high court passed the judgment affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court convicting a-2, a-3, a-4 and a-5. questioning the correctness of the said judgment, they have filed this appeal. it is to be noted that though a-3 had filed the special leave petition, the same was dismissed.5. learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no material to show any involvement of a-2, a-4 and a-5.6. learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment stating that trial court did not analyse the evidence and therefore high court interfered.7. it needs to be noted that there is no reference by the high court to any material to connect the appellants with the alleged crime. the trial court had referred to the evidence elaborately to conclude that prosecution has failed to prove its case.8. on going through the judgment of the high court and the trial court, it appears that the high court did not refer to any circumstance which would establish the connection of the present appellants with the alleged crime. in fact, a-3 - the husband has suffered the sentence imposed upon him and in an event the special leave petition had been dismissed so far as the husband is concerned.9. in the absence of any material on record which would establish the guilt of the accused and absence of any material to show involvement of the appellants, their conviction cannot be upheld and the impugned judgment is set aside and their acquittal is directed. bail bonds executed to give effect to the order of bail dated 24-02-2003 shall stand discharged.10. the appeal is allowed accordingly.
Judgment:Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Heard.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge at Karnataka High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur had directed acquittal of the five accused persons. A-1 is the father-in-law, A-2 is the mother-in-law, A-3 is husband, A-4 is the brother-in-law and A-5 is the sister-in-law of Sharada (hereinafter referred to as the deceased).
3. It was the prosecution version that because of the cruelty, the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record came to hold that accusations have not been established. An appeal was filed by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). The High Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Trial Court and recorded conviction in terms of Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
4. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court A-1 died. The High Court passed the judgment affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court convicting A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5. Questioning the correctness of the said judgment, they have filed this appeal. It is to be noted that though A-3 had filed the special leave petition, the same was dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no material to show any involvement of A-2, A-4 and A-5.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment stating that Trial Court did not analyse the evidence and therefore High Court interfered.
7. It needs to be noted that there is no reference by the High Court to any material to connect the appellants with the alleged crime. The Trial Court had referred to the evidence elaborately to conclude that prosecution has failed to prove its case.
8. On going through the judgment of the High Court and the Trial Court, it appears that the High Court did not refer to any circumstance which would establish the connection of the present appellants with the alleged crime. In fact, A-3 - the husband has suffered the sentence imposed upon him and in an event the special leave petition had been dismissed so far as the husband is concerned.
9. In the absence of any material on record which would establish the guilt of the accused and absence of any material to show involvement of the appellants, their conviction cannot be upheld and the impugned judgment is set aside and their acquittal is directed. Bail bonds executed to give effect to the order of bail dated 24-02-2003 shall stand discharged.
10. The appeal is allowed accordingly.