Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of H.P. vs Rahul Gupta on 10 February, 2016
Bench: S.A. Bobde, Amitava Roy
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2157-2158/2011
STATE OF H.P. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAHUL GUPTA & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
These are the appeals by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the Judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh acquitting the respondents – accused for offences under Section 304 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each.
The respondents were prosecuted for the death of Ms. Jyoti who was one of the daughters of Mr. Shyam Lal. She was married to Mr. Rahul Gupta – Respondent No.1 herein in the remote area of village Chudi.
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that Ms. Jyoti was ill-treated by her husband, Respondent No.1 herein, at the behest of his mother for bringing less dowry. That on 29-9-2004, she was taken to a Hospital with 100% burn injuries. There were deep burn injuries all over the body with skin peeled off over the upper and lower limbs and upper back. Eye brows, eye lashes and hair over the middle of scalp were burnt and curled up and her face was swollen. Her naked body was covered with a bed sheet and she was unable to make a statement. She ultimately died. Her body was smelling of kerosene. There is no doubt about the fact that she died of burn injuries. The only question was whether the respondents are guilty of the offence under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Signature Not Verified court convicted the respondents. However, the High Court Digitally signed by Vinod Kumar acquitted them under Section 304 B. The death undoubtedly occurred Date: 2016.02.19 10:26:19 IST Reason:
within seven years of marriage but the High Court has categorically found on the evidence, that there was no evidence to show that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by 2 her husband or any relatives of her husband and, therefore, it was not a case of dowry death. In particular, the High Court referred to evidence of one Nek Ram PW 9, the neighbour, who deposed that Jyoti used to visit him and tell him that her parents spoiled her life by marrying her off in a small village whereas she hailed from Pathankot. This neighbour stated that the respondents treated her well. In fact, the Respondent No.2, Mrs. Bholi, mother of Respondent No.1, treated her like her own daughter and that when Ms. Jyoti gave birth to a female child, she distributed ladoos.
On the critical examination of the evidence of these witnesses and others such as PW 8, 10 and 11, the Court observed that there was no evidence of demand for dowry or ill-treatment. In fact, even PW 10, Ms. Bimla Rani, the mother of the deceased, stated on being confronted with her statement Exhibit DA, there was no mention about the fact that the respondents used to demand cash. The High Court has observed that perusal of her statement as a whole shows that her inculpatory statement could not be true since she had told the Respondent No. 1 – Rahul Gupta, outside the hospital that it was not his fault. It may also be seen that in the earlier statements made by PW 3 – Shyam Lal, the father of the deceased, there were no mention about the petromax or that the birth of a female child had caused a problem. The allegations of demand of cash and scooter were only added at the time of leading evidence in the Court for the first time and did not find any mention in the earlier statements. In the result, the High Court concluded that there was no evidence of cruelty to warrant a conviction under Section 304 B of the IPC.
Since the learned counsel for the appellant – State of H.P. did not appear before us, we have perused the relevant statements of the witnesses and have also heard the learned counsel for the respondents.
On the perusal of the evidence in the case, we are satisfied that the High Court has not committed any error in rendering a finding of acquittal. The evidence in the case creates a doubt about the prosecution story particularly with reference to the 3 ill-treatment which is a main ingredient for the offence under Section 304 B of Indian Penal Code. The benefit of such doubt must undoubtedly go to the respondents – accused as has been rightly given by the High Court.
We thus see no merit in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.
......................J (S.A. BOBDE) ......................J (AMITAVA ROY) NEW DELHI;
10TH FEBRUARY, 2016.4
ITEM NO.110 IN COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2157-2158/2011 STATE OF H.P. Appellant(s) VERSUS RAHUL GUPTA & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 10/02/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma,Adv.(N.P.) For Respondent(s) Mr. O. P. Bhadani,Adv. Mr. Ashok Anand, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Criminal Appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(VISHAL ANAND) (MADHU NARULA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
5