2012 (5) TMI 843 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Demand for dowry and ill-treatment u/s 304-B and 498-A IPC.
2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility.
3. Applicability of legal principles regarding dowry and acquittal.

Summary:

1. Demand for dowry and ill-treatment u/s 304-B and 498-A IPC:
The criminal appeal challenges the High Court's reversal of the Sessions Court's acquittal of the Appellant u/s 304-B and 498-A IPC. The High Court convicted the Appellant based on evidence of dowry demands and ill-treatment leading to the deceased's suicide. The High Court imposed 7 years rigorous imprisonment u/s 304-B IPC and 6 months rigorous imprisonment u/s 498-A IPC.

2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility:
The prosecution presented witnesses Jiwan (PW.1), Suresh (PW.2), and Fateh Singh (PW.3), who testified about dowry demands and ill-treatment. However, the trial court found inconsistencies in their testimonies, particularly regarding the exact amounts demanded and paid. The trial court also noted the absence of key witnesses like Gopi Chand, leading to an acquittal. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and found sufficient proof of dowry demands and ill-treatment, leading to the Appellant's conviction.

3. Applicability of legal principles regarding dowry and acquittal:
The Supreme Court examined whether the demand for money by the Appellant for his tailoring business constituted a dowry demand. Citing Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra and Bachni Devi v. State of Maharashtra, the Court noted that demands related to financial stringency or domestic expenses do not necessarily constitute dowry demands. The Court also emphasized the principle that appellate courts should interfere with acquittals only in exceptional cases where the judgment is perverse.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found major inconsistencies and embellishments in the prosecution's case. The demand of Rs. 10,000/- by the Appellant was not mentioned in the statements u/s 161 CrPC. The chemical analysis report did not support the suicide theory. The Court concluded that the Appellant's defense was plausible and gave him the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, acquitting the Appellant of all charges.