Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302/34 – Prosecution under – Of four accused – Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal of one accused and conviction of the rest by trial court – High Court confirmed the conviction of appellants-accused while acquitting the third accused – On appeal, held: The circumstances of the case set out by the High Court for holding the appellants-accused guilty, establish chain of events and being directly connected with the incident, establish involvement of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – The story of suicide set up by the accused is unbelievable on the evidence on record – The appellants-accused were required to explain the circumstances in which the deceased died, which they failed – One of the appellantsaccused also failed to adduce any evidence to prove his plea of alibi – Conviction confirmed.
Constitution of India:
Art. 136 – Jurisdiction under – In criminal case – Held: In exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 136, courts should be slow in interfering with concurrent findings of facts which are based on due appreciation of evidence – Court not to appreciate the evidence de novo unless prima facie shown that courts below did not consider relevant piece of evidence, or there existed perversity or/and absurdity in their findings.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is a settled principle of law that when the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings against the accused persons which are based on due appreciation of evidence, this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution would be slow to interfere in such concurrent findings and secondly would not appreciate the evidence de novo unless it is prima facie shown that both the Courts below did not either consider the relevant piece of evidence or there exists any perversity or/and absurdity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below etc. [Para 31] [652-C-D]
2. The Courts below properly appreciated the evidence and came to a right conclusion that the appellants were responsible for commission of the offence of murder. [Para 30] [652-B]
3. There is evidence to prove the factum of demand of dowry. PW-1, the real brother of the deceased, was the complainant. His evidence was rightly relied on by the two Courts below for holding that the appellants were persistently making a demand of dowry from the deceased and her family members and they used to harass her for such cause. The testimony of PW-1 is natural and consistent having no material contradiction, Therefore, there is no justification to disbelieve it. So far as the story of suicide set up by the appellants is concerned, it is wholly unbelievable on the evidence brought on record. [Paras 33 and 34] [652-F-G]
4. The circumstances set out by the High Court for holding the appellants guilty cannot be faulted with. These circumstances do establish the chain of events and being directly connected with the incident in question, establish the involvement of the appellants in commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The test laid down to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence in the present case is fully satisfied by the circumstances against the appellants. [Para 37] [653-H; 654-A]
5. Both the appellants-accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 failed to give any explanation when asked about the circumstances in which the incident occurred in their house. When the incident admittedly occurred in their house, the appellants were required to explain the circumstances in which the deceased died. They, however, failed to give any explanation. Appellant-accused ‘T’ also failed to adduce any evidence to prove his plea of alibi. [Paras 39 and 40] [654-C-D, E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.