Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jwala Prasad vs State Of Chhatisgarh . on 8 June, 2016
Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Amitava Roy
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1609/2010
JWALA PRASAD Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
We have heard Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – accused at length today.
This appeal is against the conviction which was awarded by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court and thereby the appellant – accused herein is undergoing rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
The case of the prosecution is that the victim was married to one Shri Shailendra Kumar and the appellant is the father-in-law of the deceased. On 30-5-2006, marriage was performed between Mr. Shailendra Kumar and Ms. Neera Tiwari. It further appears that the victim committed suicide in the matrimonial house by pouring kerosene upon her and setting herself on fire on 9-8-2006. The intimation was recorded at the instance of the appellant – herein on 10-8-2006. A written complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased - victim alleging that all the accused persons including the present appellant – herein had demanded dowry, committed cruelty and torture upon the deceased - victim and as a result of such unbearable treatment, she committed suicide.
The trial court on the basis of the facts and circumstances and the evidence, both oral and documentary, convicted all the accused persons including the accused – appellant herein except the brother-in-law of the victim – deceased. Being aggrieved, appeal was filed before the High Court. The High Court after appreciating the evidence of witnesses and the relevant records, convicted Mr. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Shailendra Kumar as well as the present appellant – herein under Date: 2016.06.10 10:24:09 IST Reason: Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code for commission of dowry death and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The High Court, however, was pleased to allow the appeal of the 2 mother-in-law of the victim – deceased Smt. Shashi Tiwari who was acquitted.
It is to be noted that by virtue of the said conviction, Mr. Shailendra Kumar, the husband of the victim – deceased, has already suffered the sentence and has already been set at liberty after completion of the sentence of 10 years. The present appellant, being the father-in-law of the deceased – victim has filed the appeal before this Court challenging such conviction against him. It is further to be noted that the present appellant, from time to time, has already served the sentence to the extent of 1 year and 10 months. Upon his filing application for bail, pursuant to Order dated 19-8-2011 passed by this Court, he has been released on bail till the disposal of the pending appeal.
The allegations on the basis of which the appellant has been convicted would be evident from paragraph 20 of the High Court's Judgment which reads as follows:-
“There are some contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses with their previous statements recorded by the police (Exs. D/1 to D/3). Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-3), father of the deceased, has deposed that after 15 days of marriage of his daughter, Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 came to his village and demanded Rs.50,000/-, but this evidence does not find place in his previous statement (Ex.P/2). This part has not been supported by other witnesses, but other witnesses have deposed that after receiving telephone call, he went to the house of the appellants where he met with the appellants. Statement of Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-2) reveals that demand of Rs.50,000/- was between appellant Nos. 1 and 2, but he has exaggerated and tried to involve appellant No.3 who is wife of appellant No.2.” It is further to be noted that the High Court after recording the facts, stated that only inference can be drawn that the appellant has committed cruelty and torture upon the deceased in connection with the demand for dowry. In our view, there is no adequate evidence to prove the charge against the appellant and the 3 Courts have based his conviction on inference.
In these circumstances, we find that there is no positive evidence against the appellant – accused which can effectively establish his connection with the charge of cruelty and torture upon the deceased for dowry.
We have been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the accused is presently 76 years old and is immobile.
In view of that and further after considering the fact that the appellant has already suffered mental agony since 2006 i.e., from the date of death of the victim i.e., 9-8-2006, we are inclined to interfere.
Hence, we do not find any acceptable reason to confirm the Judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant – accused in this case, the father-in-law of the deceased – victim.
Accordingly, we allow the appeal filed by the accused – appellant and set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court convicting him. The appellant is already on bail and thus his bail bonds are hereby discharged.
......................J (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) ......................J (AMITAVA ROY) NEW DELHI;
8TH JUNE, 2016.4
ITEM NO.111 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIA
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). 1609/2010
JWALA PRASAD Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With office report)
Date: 08/06/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY (VACATION BENCH) For Appellant(s) Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv.
Mr. A.C. Bojupatro, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We allow the appeal filed by the accused – appellant and set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court convicting him, in terms of the signed order. The appellant is already on bail and thus his bail bonds are hereby discharged.
(VISHAL ANAND) (SNEH LATA SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Order is placed on the file)