Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Victim-deceased, wife of appellant, was subjected to dowry demand by her in-laws – She was tormented and tortured – Victim died within about fifteen months of marriage – The complainant received information that his daughter committed suicide by hanging herself – FIR was registered u/ss.498A, 304B and 34 – However, the trial Court framed charges u/ss.498A and 302 of IPC r/w s.34 – Trial Court convicted Appellant (A1), appellant’s mother (A2), appellant’s brother (A3) and acquitted appellant’s father (A4) – The High Court confirmed the conviction of A1, however, acquitted A2 and A3 – A1 has filed this appeal against his conviction:
Held: The injuries found on the body of the deceased are not consistent with an ordinary case of suicidal hanging – The existence of ante mortem injuries on different parts of the body of deceased is not ordinarily capable of being self-inflicted – This fact substantially undermines the defence version of suicide – In the present case, the medical evidence indicates that the deceased has been subjected to violence prior to her death thereby negating the theory of voluntary suicidal act – There is Gour Acharjee v. The State of Tripura & Ors. no hesitation in confirming the finding of the trial Court and the High Court that the death was due to the head injury and that the deceased was put on hanging – Further, summary of other relevant prosecution witnesses give clear evidence to the effect that there was consistent torture of the deceased with regard to the demand for dowry especially for the motorcycle and cash – The medical opinion clearly points to simulated hanging or homicidal hanging – It is well settled that if an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house, though the initial burden to establish the case would be on the prosecution there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the victim succumbed – In the present case, PW-14 clearly states of the presence of the appellant when the body of the deceased was found hanging – When confronted with the circumstances u/s.313, Cr.P.C., the appellant did not choose to offer any explanation – The appellant did not endeavour to discharge the burden and to explain the injuries on the deceased by offering a plausible explanation – His defence that it was a case of suicide has been belied by the overwhelming medical evidence – Appellant directed to be taken in custody. [Paras 11-13, 25, 28, 31, 32]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.