State of
U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava [1992] INSC
4 (14 January 1992)
Ahmadi,
A.M. (J) Ahmadi, A.M. (J) Ramaswamy, K.
CITATION:
1992 AIR 840 1992 SCR (1) 37 1992 SCC (2) 86 JT 1992 (1) 340 1992 SCALE (1)149
ACT:
Indian
Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302 and 34 (Occurrence prior to insertion of
Section 304-B).
Dowry
death-accused-Husband, his father and sister- Conviction by Trial
Court-Re-evaluation and Re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court-Reversal
of conviction order and acquittal of accused by High Court-Held High Court's
order resulted in miscarriage of justice and is liable to be set aside.
Constitution
of India, 1950 : Article 136-Scope of
Murder-Covinction by Trial Court-On appeal acquittal by High Court-Appeal
against acquittal order-Power of Supreme Court to appreciate evidence and
interfere with acquittal order-Held Supreme Court can interfere with acquittal
order if High Court's order has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 3.
Circumstantial
evidence-Appreciation and evaluation of- Court must adopt a cautious
approach-Conviction should be recorded only if all the links in the chain of
evidence fully establish the hypothesis of guilt of the accused-But prosecution
is not bound to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by accused however
far-fetched and fanciful it might be.
HEAD NOTE:
Respondent,
A was married to M, daughter of PW2, at Banaras on 13th May,
1973. Subsequent to
their marriage A, who was serving as Assistant Engineer, was transferred to Lucknow where he hired a two room first
floor apartment for his residence. The ground floor of the house was occupied
by the sons of the landlord, PWs 1 and 4. It was alleged that A, his father and
sister were not satisfied with the sufficiency of the dowry and therefore all
the three were taunting, tormenting and torturing M. During one of their visits
to Banaras the question of dowry was once again raised when A'S father and
sister misbehaved with M 38 and her father and stated that they won't allow M
to live with A unless dowry was made good. When there was a heated argument, A
returned to Lucknow without M. M entreated her
father-in law to permit her to join A at Lucknow but the latter refused saying that she will have to rot at Banaras alone unless the dowry amount was
made good. Ignoring her father-in law's refusal M went to Lucknow to join her husband. On coming to
know that M had gone to Lucknow A's father and sister followed her
to Lucknow and all the three quarrelled and
beat M. On that very night they sprinkled kerosene on M and set her ablaze.
Thereafter, all the three accused came out of the room shouting `fire-fire'. On
hearing the shouts PWs 1 and 4 came out of their house and saw that while M was
in flames all the three accused were standing in the verandah talking to each
other and were unconcerned about her plight. None of accused made any effort to
extinguish the flames or to rescue her. PW 1 called the fire brigade and PW 3,
a fireman, took M to the hospital where she was declared dead. On coming to
know of the incident, PW 2, father lodged the FIR and all the three accused
were prosecuted for murder.
Relying
upon the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 and other circumstances of the case the
Trial Court came to the conclusion that the charge against all the three
accused was made out by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly
the Trial Court convicted them under sections 302/34 and sentenced each of them
to imprisonment for life.
The
Trial Court also rejected the theory of accidental death of M.
The
accused preferred an appeal before the High Court which on re-evaluation and
re-appreciation of the evidence agreed with the Trial Court that the presence
of PWs 1 and 4 on the scene of occurrence was probable and natural but
suspected the trustworthiness of their evidence.
Accordingly,
it allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction order by holding that the
evidence did not disclose the involvement of the accused and that in all
probability the deceased M committed suicide.
The
state preferred an appeal before this Court challenging the High Court's
decision.
Allowing
the appeal, this Court,
HELD :
1. While appreciating circumstantial evidence the court must adopt a very
cautious approach and should record a conviction only if all the links in the
chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the 39 accused and every hypothesis
of innocence is capable of being negatived on evidence. Great care must be
taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is
reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be
accepted. The circumstance relied upon must be found to have been fully
established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. But this is not to say that the
prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused
however far-fetched and fanciful it might be. Not does it mean that prosecution
evidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt because the law permits
rejection if the doubt is reasonable and not otherwise. [46D-E]
2. The
presumption of innocence of the accused is strengthened, certainly not
weakened, by their acquittal and ordinarily this Court is slow to interfere
with an order of acquittal in exercise of its extraordinary powers under
Article 136 of the Constitution, but in the instant case the approach of the
High court has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore it is not
possible for this Court to refuse to interfere when a gruesome crime is
committed which has resulted in the extinction of a young mother to be. [46- F,
48-D]
3. The
approach of the High Court was wholly against the weight of evidence. Since PWs
1 and 4 were occupying the ground floor of the building of which A and M were
occupying the first floor their presence at the time of occurrence cannot be
doubted. They had no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons and have
disclosed vital facts such as the arrival of accused-husband's father and
sister hot on the heels of the return of deceased M from Banaras, quarrels and
beating which had taken place in the past and immediately before the incident
between the accused persons on the one hand and the deceased M on the other,
and all the three accused having come out shouting `fire fire' when the
deceased was afire and none of the accused having gone to her rescue. The
conduct of the three accused persons in not trying to save deceased M and in
showing total indifference to her fate speaks volumes of their culpability.
[48-C, 44- B, 47-C, 44-G-H, 46-A]
3.1
All the circumstances of the case when taken together leave no room for doubt
that the three accused persons were the joint authors of the crime. Accordingly
the order of acquittal passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is restored. [48-C, E] 40
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1979.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.1978 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 913 of 1976.
Shiv Pujan
Singh and A.S. Pundir for the Appellants.
R.K. Garg
and Anil K. Gupta for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. Meera Srivastava, a young
woman aged about 25 years. died of burns on the night between 20th and 21st July, 1974 at about 2.30 a.m. in the two room apartment of her husband Ashok Kumar
Srivastava, original accused No. 1.
The
marriage had taken place less than a year ago on 13th May, 1973 at Banaras. Both the family of the deceased
and the family of the husband hail from Banaras but after their wedding Ashok who was serving as an Assistant Engineer
was transferred to Lucknow where he had hired a two room first
floor apartment for his residence. The ground floor was occupied by the
landlord. The first Information Report was lodged by PW 2 J.P. Shrivastava,
father of the unfortunate woman, after he rushed by taxi to Lucknow on learning about the incident. The
offence of murder was registered and in the course of investigation statements
of PW 1 Prabhat Kumar and PW 4 Rajendra Prasad, both brothers residing on the
ground floor came to be recorded. Statements of other witnesses including PW 3
Ram Raj Mishra, a fire brigade man, and PW 5 S.K. Srivastava, brother of the
deceased, were also recorded. On a consideration of the evidence of PWs 1 to 5
as well as the evidence of PW 9 Dr R.K. Aggarwal, the Trial Court, bearing in
mind other circumstances pointed out in the judgment, came to the conclusion
that the charge against the three accused was brought home by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt. On that conclusion the Trial Court convicted all the
three accused persons under Section 302/34, I.P.C., and sentenced each of them
to imprisonment for life. Feeling aggrieved by this order of conviction and
sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, the three
accused persons preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 913/1976, to the
High Court, That appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court which on
a re-evaluation and reappreciation of the prosecution evidence came to the
conclusion that in all probability the deceased Meera committed suicide and the
evidence did not disclose the involvement of the appellants/accused in the
commission of the crime. In that view that the High Court took, the High Court
allowed the 41 appeal, set aside the order of conviction and order and sentence
passed by the Trial Court and acquitted all the three appellants/accused. The
State of U.P., not satisfied by the judgment rendered by the High Court
approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. This Court granted
Special Leave to Appeal and that is how the present appeal is before us. In
order to understand the prosecution case we may now state the facts in brief.
Meera
and Ashok, both residents of Banaras, were married on 13th May, 1973 at Banaras.
On Ashok being transferred to Lucknow, they occupied a two room apartment of
house number 557/17K. Ashok and his wife were occupying the first floor whereas
PW 1 and PW 4, the two sons of Kedar Singh to whom the house belonged, occupied
the ground floor. The prosecution case is that at the time of and immediately
after the marriage there was some bickering in regard to the quantum of dowry
paid by the bride's father. The allegation is that the father and sister of Ashok
were not satisfied with the dowry or expenditure incurred on gifts by the
father of the deceased Meera. They were of the view that what was paid in cash
as well as by way of gifts at the time of `Tilak' was short by about Rs. 4,000.
On account of this feeling the three accused were taunting the deceased and
when she tried to defend her father she was tormented and tortured by the
accused persons. On 13th July, 1974 both ashok and Meera had gone to Banaras.
While they were there this question of dowry once again raised its head and it
is alleged that even on that occasion the father and sister of Ashok misbehaved
with Meera and her father and stated that they would not allow Meera to live
with Ashok unless Rs. 4,000 were paid towards dowry. It appears that after this
exchange of heated words Ashok left for Lucknow on 18th July, 1974 leaving Meera
behind. Meera was naturally perturbed. She wanted to follow him but her
father-in-law did not permit her. She then went to the house of her friend Madhu
and from there called her brother PW 5 Sushil Kumar Srivastava and told him she
desired to go to Lucknow as she wanted to find out the attitude of her husband.
Despite
PW 5 advising her not to go to Lucknow in view of the threats administered by
the father and sister of Ashok, she went to Lucknow on 20th July, 1974 to the
house of her husband. PW 5 left her there and returned to Banaras by the 2.00
p.m. by Punjab Mail. On learning about Meera's visit to Lucknow the father and
sister of Ashok also went to Lucknow. The prosecution case is that after they
reached Lucknow all the three quarrelled and beat Meera during the day and in
the dead of night at about 2.30 or 2.45 a.m., they sprinkled kerosene on her
and set her ablaze. The house was occupied by Ashok, his father Rajendra Lal
and his sister Sudha when the incident occurred. According to the prosecution
at the dead of night these three persons came out of the room shouting
`fire-fire' and stood in the front verandah of the house while Meera 42 was
still in flames. No effort whatsoever was made by any of them to extinguish the
flames or to rescue her. PW 1 and PW 4 on hearing the shouts came out of their
house. PW 1 ran up to see what had happened. He was shocked to find that Meera
was in flames and the three accused persons were standing in the verandah
talking to each other unconcerned about the plight of the woman. PW 1
thereafter ran to the nearby fire brigade station and informed the staff there
about the incident. PW 4 had followed p. W. 1 upstairs. He saw the incident
from place where he was not visible to the accused persons. He saw the accused
carry Meera to the next room and after a while brought her back with the tongue
protruding out. PW 1 returned with the fire-brigade men.
The
fireman, PW 3 Ram Raj Mishra, carried Meera on a stretcher to the van and then
to the Civil Hospital Hazzat Ganj but the Medical Officer there could not admit
her for want of a vacant bed. She was therefore sent to Balrampur hospital
where the doctor declared her dead. This, in brief, is the prosecution version
regarding the actual incident.
The
father of the girl was informed about the incident and as no train was
immediately available, he hired a taxi and came to Lucknow. He went straight to the place of
occurrence. Since he was a stranger he talked to certain persons, including PW
1, and thereafter lodged his First Information Report, Ka-I, at about 7.00 p.
m. at Alam Bagh Police Station, Lucknow. Prior thereto it may be mentioned that PW 3 Ram Raj Mishra had taken
the three accused persons to the hospital and after they were free from there Ashok's
father went to the police station at about 6.15 p.m. to lodge a report about
his daughter-in-law's death due to burns.This is how the report Exh. Kha-I and
the F.I.R. Exh Ka-I came to be recorded.
The
prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW 1 to PW 5 and PW 9 DR. Aggarwal
who undertook the post mortem examination to bring home the guilt against the
three accused. On the basis of their evidence and the 21 circumstances
enumerated by the learned Trial Judge, a conviction under Section 302/34,
I.P.C. was recorded.
The
Trial Court came to the conclusion that having regard to the time at which the
incident occurred the presence of PW 1 and PW 4 at the place of occurrence is
not only probable but also natural. He did not doubt their testimony when they
deposed that they saw the three accused persons standing in the verandah
chit-chatting with each other totally indifferent to the plight of Meera who
was an fire. It also accepted the testimony of PW 4 that when Meera was dragged
to the smaller room her tongue was inside the mouth, but when she was brought
back, her tongue was protruding out, thereby suggesting that the three accused
persons made sure her life was 43 extinct by strangulating her. This inference
is corroborated by medical evidence. It also found that the evidence of PW 3
corroborated the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 to some extent. It held that the
F.I.R. was lodged without delay and since PW 2 was a total stranger, the
absence of names of witnesses cannot weaken it. The motive for the crime was
dowry. This fact was found proved from the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5. The
fact that Meera was carrying twins in her womb since six months is proved
beyond doubt. The theory of accidental death had to be brushed aside in view of
the presence of kerosene on the scalp of the deceased. Of the two remaining
possibilities, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence placed
on record proved beyond doubt that death was homicidal as (i) her tongue was
protruding out (ii) there was presence of kerosene and (iii) her stomach was
empty. In this view of the evidence, the learned Trial Judge relying on the
evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 and the 21 circumstances set out in the judgment
came to the conclusion that the cumulative effect of the evidence led one to
the only conclusion that the accused persons had done Meera to death.
Particular emphasis was laid on the unnatural conduct of the three accused
persons. The fact that accused Rajinder and Sudha followed Meera to Lucknow and
yet they tried to tell a lie on this point betrayed a guilty conscience. The
absence of an `angithi' in the kitchen, the protruding of the tongue and the
absconding of the accused immediately after the incident supplied links to the
prosecution version regarding the incident. On the basis of this evidence, the
learned trial Judge convicted all the three accused persons of murder with the
aid of Section 34, I.P.C.
On
appeal, the High Court while agreeing with the Trial Court that the presence of
PWs 1 and 4 was both probable and natural doubted their testimony firstly on
the ground that their names did not figure in the F.I.R. filed by Meera's
father even though they had spoken to him about the incident before he lodged
the F.I.R. The High Court observes that this meant that both the witnesses did
not disclose anything incriminating the accused persons, for otherwise such
facts would have found a mention in the F.I.R. On the basis of this inference
drawn by the High Court on account of the absence of their names in the F.I.R.
the High Court came to the conclusion that PWs 1 and 4 had falsely implicated
the accused persons at the behest of Meera's father and his acquaintances and
hence their evidence was not beyond suspicion. The High Court points out the PW
1 hailed from Qadirabad of Banaras District which village was adjacent to
village Ghauspur where the complainant's niece was married to one Bansidhar who
happened to be a friend of the family of PWs 1 and 4. One Inspector, Vijay Pratap
Singh, posted at Lucknow was a `pattidar' of that family and
through him Meera's father had approached the investigating Officer who in turn
succeeded in 44 persuading PWs 1 and 4 testify against the accused persons.
Once
the High Court suspected the trustworthiness of PWs 1 and 4 it brushed aside
the various circumstances pointed out in the judgment of the Trial Court and
acquitted the accused persons. The question is whether this approach of the
High Court can be sustained? As pointed out earlier since PWs 1 and 4 were
occupying the ground floor of the building of which Ashok and his wife were
occupying the first floor, their presence at the time of occurrence cannot be
doubted. Nor have the accused denied their presence in their statements. Even
according to the theory put up the defence the accused persons had come out
shouting `fire-fire and, therefore, it is not surprising that PWs 1 and 4 woke
up from their sleep. PW 1 immediately rushed to the first floor to find out
what had happened. PW 4 followed him and placed himself at a point from where
he was not visible to the accused persons. Both these witnesses have deposed
that after Ashok and Meera came to occupy the first floor there used to be
frequent quarrels between them on the question of insufficiency of dowry. Both
of them have deposed that the accused used to beat her and she used to confide
in their sister. They also deposed that the father and sister of Ashok had come
to Lucknow from Banaras after Meera's brother, PW 5, had left her at Lucknow and returned to Banaras. The evidence of PWs 2 and 5, the
father and brother of Meera, shows that before Meera returned to Lucknow there
were quarrels between the accused persons on the one side and she and her
family members on the other regarding insufficiency of dowry. It was after
heated exchanges on this account that Ashok left for Lucknow on 18th July, 1974. Meera entreated her father-in-law to allow her to go to Lucknow but the latter refused and stated
that she would have to rot at Banaras unless
the dowry was made good. Meera, therefore, went to the residence of her friend Madhu,
and from there she sent for her brother PW 5.
When
her father-in-law returned to the house and found her missing he was annoyed
and went to the house of her father and quarreled with him. Immediately
thereafter he and Sudha left for Lucknow and during the day beat and quarreled with Meera. Her husband too
joined them. The absence of food matter in the stomach and small intestines of Meera
shows that she did not take her dinner before she went to bed.
Ultimately
between 2.30 and 2.45
a.m. the unfortunate
incident took place. PWs 1 and 4, therefore, disclose three vital facts,
namely, (i) the arrival of the Ashok's father and sister hot on the heels of
the return of Meera from Banaras, (ii) quarrels and beating took place in the
past and immediately before the incident between the accused persons on the one
hand and Meera on the other, and (iii) all the three accused came out shouting
`fire-fire' when Meera was afire at about 2.30 or 2.45 a.m. and none went to
her rescue. Counsel for the defence 45 submitted that Meera had a flicker of
hope that her husband's attitude would be different from that of her
father-in-law and sister-in-law but when she found that he too shared their
views she was frustrated and when every one was fast asleep she poured kerosene
on herself and committed suicide. This suggestion would have found favour with
us had the conduct of the accused persons been consistent therewith. The
evidence of PWs 1 and 4 clearly shows that after the accused persons came to
reside in their house there were frequent quarrels with Meera and she was being
beaten by all the three. Even on the evening of the fateful day she was beaten
and kicked by her husband and the other two as she was not wanted at Lucknow. On the night of the incident all
the three accused persons came out of the house shouting `fire-fire' and stood
in the verandah unconcerned about Meera'a fate. They were seen chit-chatting in
a casual manner, by both the witnesses. Besides it must be noticed that none of
the three accused had any burn marks to suggest that they had tried to go to
the rescue of Meera.
Since
the body of Meera was lying in between the two rooms, the possibility of Meera
having Bolted one room from inside must be ruled out. Search of the three
accused was on and accused Rajinder Lal and Sudha could be apprehended on the
23rd but accused Ashok was absconding and presented himself as late as 5th September, 1974 armed with an anticipatory bail
order. He was clearly absconding and his explanation that he had gone to Allahabad to fetch his pay slip must be
stated to be rejected. One does not absent oneself from duty for more than one
and a half months to fetch a pay slip. A lame and false explanation of this
type only adds a link in the prosecution chain of events. Similarly the false
explanation of the other two accused that they had not followed Meera but had
come a day before her arrival to see an ailing relative shows their anxiety to
avoid the situation of having followed her for obvious reasons. No match box
was found on the floor but it was found securely placed on the upper 6 feet
high slab. Then the statement of accused Rajendra Lal to the police, kha-1,
that Meera was taking her meals at 10.00 p.m. when he retired is falsified by
the absence of food material in her stomach and small intestines. These are
added circumstances on which the prosecution has justifiably relied.
Much
was tried to be made of the fact that it was the accused who gave the alarm of
fire and informed the police also which goes to show that they did not have a
guilty conscience. This submission, however, overlooks the fact that the
apartment was a small two room apartment and with smoke billowing from the
clothes and the body of Meera they were virtually forced out of the small room
occupied by them. it is, therefore, not surprising that they flung open the
door to the verandah and ran out for fresh air shouting `fire-fire'. It was
impossible to keep that information from the neighbours.
46 The
intimation to the police was also to save their skin as they would have known
anyhow since PW 3 had reached the place of occurrence. Therefore, the conduct of
the three accused persons in not trying to save Meera and in showing total
indifference to her fate which speaks volumes of their culpability cannot be
explained away by the above facts. We, are, therefore, not impressed by the two
submissions made by counsel for the accused persons. On the other hand, we find
that in the background of facts deposed to by PWs 1 and 4 and their subsequent
total indifference regarding the Meera's fate certainly betrays a guilty
conscience as observed by the Trial Court. So also we find it difficult to
accept the contention that the accused being highly educated (so was Meera)
would not commit such a gruesome crime. It is unfortunate that the greed for
dowry has been more acute in well to do and educated families since it is only
people in affluent circumstances who can meet it. We cannot countenance such a
submission although that found favour with the High Court.
This
Court has, time out of number, observed that while appreciating circumstantial
evidence the Court must adopt a very cautious approach and should record a
conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the
guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is capable of being negatived
on evidence. Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and
if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour
of the accused must be accepted. The circumstance relied upon must be found to
have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. But this is
not to say that the prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forward
by the accused however farfetched and fanciful it might be. Nor does it mean
that prosecution evidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt bacause the
law permits rejection if the doubt is reasonable and not otherwise. We are also
conscious of the fact that the presumption of innocence is strengthened,
certainly not weakened, by their acquittal by the High Court and ordinarily
this Court is slow to interfere with an order of acquittal in exercise of its
extraordinary powers under Section 136 of the Constitution.
However,
in the present case the facts found proved as discussed earlier are
(i) the
accused were unhappy about the cash and articles given by way of dowry at the
time of the `tilak' ceremony
(ii) the
accused taunted, tormented and tortured Meera for the insufficiency of the
dowry amount
(iii)a
few days before the incident while at Banaras there was a heated argument and
then Ashok returned to Lucknow without Meera
(iv) Meera
entreated her father-in-law to permit her to join Ashok but the latter refused
saying she will have to rot at Banaras alone
unless the dowry amount was made good
(v) ignoring
her father-in-law's refusal Meera went 47 to Lucknow
(vi) the
two accused Rajendra Lal and Sudha followed her to Lucknow
(vii)
while at Lucknow all the three illtreated her
(viii)
Meera was found on fire at about 2.30 or 2.45 a.m.
(ix) while
she was burning the three accused who alone were inside came out of the room
and stood in the verandah chit-chatting unconcerned about her plight
(x) none
of them tried to help Meera
(xi) soon
after that the house was locked and the accused could not be found
(xii) while
the two accused were apprehended on the 23rd Ashok could not be traced till he
surrendered on 5th
September, 1974, and
(xiii)
false explanation or statements were made to explain away their conduct.
PWs 1
and 4 had no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons. The suggestion
that they had implicated them at the behest of Inspector, Vijay Pratap Singh,
is too far-fetched to be accepted. Even according to the evidence of PW 2, the
father of Meera, he did not know them prior to the incident. This unfortunate
father came to the scene of occurrence after he was informed about the death of
his young daughter. He naturally went to the place of occurrence, contacted the
people there and talked to PWs 1 and 4. He went back and lodged a complaint,
Ext. Ka-1, in which he did mention the presence of the house owner though he
did not name them this is quite natural because he had not enquired of their
names having regard to the strain, stress and tension in which he was at the relevant
point of time. We are afraid the High Court was not justified in coming to the
conclusion that they had been set up at the behest of Inspector Vijay Pratap
Singh who was their pattidar. We see no reason to disbelieve any part of the
version given by PWs 1 and 4 except to say that perhaps the evidence of PW 4
that Meera's tongue was not protruding when she was removed to the smaller room
and the same was found protruding when she brought back may be an exaggeration
based on medical testimony. We, therefore, find it difficult to agree with the
High Court that these two witnesses have been falsely set up at the instance of
Inspector Vijay Pratap Singh to give false evidence against the accused
persons. So far as the complainant and his son are concerned they have not
tried to exaggerate or introduce false material to support the prosecution
case. Their testimony regarding the quarrels which took place on account of
insufficiency of dowry stands corroborated by the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 and
can be accepted without hesitation.
The
evidence of PWs 1 and 4 is partly corroborated by PW 3. Immediately after the
fire was noticed and the smoke was seen billowing out, PW 1 ran to the nearby
fire station and called the fire brigade. P.W. 3 arrived at the scene of occurrence
and he too saw the three accused persons standing in the verandah totally
indifferent to what was happening to Meera. He took 48 the victim Meera on a
stretcher to the Hospital. Counsel for the defence tried to contend that the
fact that the accused went to the hospital along with her is consistent with
their innocence. We are afraid we cannot accept this submission for the simple
reason that they had no alternative but to go along with the fireman since they
were asked to do so. It was thereafter that Ashok's father lodged the report
Ext. Kha-1. After the F.I.R. was lodged by Meera's father foul play was
suspected but by then the accused had left. The investigation ultimately led to
the arrest of the two accused other than Ashok on the 23rd.
Ashok
was still untraced and no valid explanation is to be found for his absence. He
secured anticipatory bail and thereafter surrendered on 5th September, 1974. It would, therefore, appear that
he had made himself scarce for over one and a half months. This is a
circumstance which betrays guilty conscience. In addition thereto, a number of
circumstances have been pointed out by the Trial Judge which taken together
leave no room for doubt that the three accused persons were the joint authors
of the crime. We have no hesitation, whatsoever, in concluding that the
approach of the High Court was wholly against the weight of evidence and it is
impossible to approve the same.
ordinarily,
in an acquittal this Court is slow to interfere while exercising power under Article
136 of the Constitution but here we find that the approach of the High Court
has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. It is not possible for this Court
to refuse to interfere when a gruesome crime is committed which has reassured
in the extinction of a young mother to be.
In the
result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the
High Court and restore the order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial
Court. The accused will surrender to their bail forthwith.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.
Back