Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1833           OF 2013 [Arising out of  S.L.P. (Crl.) No.4221 of 2012]

L. Krishna Reddy       .....Appellant  

       Versus

State by Station House Officer & Ors.       .....Respondents     

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.  

1. Leave granted.  This Appeal assails the Order of the High Court of  

Judicature  at  Madras  while  exercising  its  Criminal  Revisional  

Jurisdiction.  The facts disclose a  human tragedy.  Ramachandra  

Reddy was married to Sujatha on 2.5.1999.  At the initial stages of  

their marriage the deceased  couple was  staying with the bride’s  

relatives,  significantly,  not  with  her  parents-in-law  who  are  the  

remaining accused.  They had set up their own separate residence  

about six months prior to the unfortunate incidents. On 26.3.2006  

Sujatha was found murdered in the hotel room in Pondicherry  [now  

Puducherry] rented by her soon to be deceased husband.  Her body  

bore several stab wounds.   Thereupon, Crime No.86/2006 under  

1

Page 2

Section  302  IPC  dated  26.3.2006,  leading  to  Charge  Sheet  

No.59/2007 dated 31.5.2007 under Sections 302, 498-A read with  

34, IPC was registered.   It then transpires that the husband of the  

deceased,  namely,  Ramachandra  Reddy,  possibly  suffering from  

guilt  and  remorse,  committed  suicide  shortly  thereafter.   The  

question before  us  is  whether  the criminal proceedings could or  

should have been continued against his parents, namely Vidyasagar  

and  Narasamma,  who  had  preferred  a  Discharge  Petition  under  

Section  227  of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure,  1973  (‘Cr.PC’  

henceforward) in which they eventually succeeded.

2. The Final Report dated 31.5.2007 reads so –  

“Since the date of marriage at the residence at No.2-7/10,  

Lakma Reddy  Colony,  Uppal,  Hyderabad,  the  accused  

No.1 Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Vidyasagar Reddy, No.-

7/10, Lakma Reddy Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad (husband  

of the deceased) who is no more now, the accused No.2.  

Vidyasagar Reddy, S/o Ramachandra Reddy, No.2-7/10,  

Lakma Reddy Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad (Father-in-law  

of  the  deceased)  and  the  accused  No.3  Narasamma  

Reddy, w/o Vidyasagar Reddy, No.2-7/10, Lakma Reddy  

Colony,  Uppal,  Hyderabad  (Mother-in-law)  of  the  

deceased,  in  furtherance  of  their  common  intention,  

subjected the deceased Sujatha to cruelty and harassment  

relating to dowry demand and rendered themselves liable  

to be punished u/sec.498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC.

2

Page 3

That  on  25.3.2006  at  about  19.00  hrs.  at  Room  

No.306,  Hotel  Aruna,  Second  Floor,  No.3,  Zamindar  

Garden,  near  Ajantha Theatre,  S.V.P.  Salai,  Muthialpe,  

Puducherry-3,  about  800  meters  South-East  to  PS,  

accused  No.1  noted  above  in  furtherance  of  common  

intention  with  his  father,  the  second  accused  and  his  

mother,  the  third  accused,  caused  death  of  his  wife  

Sujatha,  as  she  was  unable  to  meet  out  their  unlawful  

demand of  dowry by  inflicting 11  multiple  injuries  by  

means  of  knife  with  the  knowledge  that  such  injuries  

would be likely to cause death or would be sufficient in  

the ordinary course of nature to cause death and rendered  

themselves liable to  be  punished u/sec.302 IPC r/w 34  

IPC.

Hence, the charges.

CHARGE ABATED.

The accused above said A1 Ramachandra Reddy,  

S/o Vidyasagar Reddy, No.2-7/10, Lakma Reddy Colony,  

Uppal, Hyderabad had committed suicide by hanging and  

he is no more now.  In this connection a separate case in  

Cr.No.244/2006 u/sec.174 Cr.P.C.  was registered at  PS  

D’ Nagar, dt.24.9.2006 and investigation was taken-up.

Therefore, the charge against him is abated”.

3. The  IIIrd  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Pondicherry  favoured  the  

position  that  the  proceedings  could  continue  against  the  

Respondent-parents  (Accused  Nos.2  and  3)  notwithstanding  the  

devastating death of their son (Accused No.1) despite prosecution  

against him having abated.   The Learned Additional Sessions Judge  

3

Page 4

specifically  recorded  the  fact  that  the  Public  Prosecutor  had  

conceded that there appeared to be no direct  involvement of the  

father-in-law and mother-in-law in the murder, but that since it was  

a murder case the discharge may not be considered before the Trial.  

The Learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that the parents were  

implicated  only  on  the  basis  of  the  Statements  recorded  under  

Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.; it was of the prima facie view that the  

motive behind the murder of Sujatha was dowry.  These aspects  

would  be  established  by  the  prosecution,  beyond  all  reasonable  

doubts, only in an exhaustive Trial “where the entire truth could be  

unearthed”.   It is also evident that the Learned Additional Sessions  

Judge was influenced by the direction of the High Court,  on the  

petition of the present Appellant, ordering that the case be disposed  

of within two months.

4. However, the High Court has come to the contrary conclusion, after  

having  reviewed  the  Statements  and  evidence  available  on  the  

record.  There is no dispute as regards the factum of the deceased  

married  couple  having  set  up  their  separate  and  independent  

residence.   According to  the  Complainant/Appellant  who  is  the  

father  of  the  unfortunate  lady  the  deceased  Sujatha,  he  had  

telephonically been informed by her that the married couple had left  

Hyderabad on 23.3.2006 and were proceeding to Vijayawada.  The  

4

Page 5

impugned  Judgment  records  that  none  of  the  Statements  under  

Section  161  Cr.P.C.  incriminate  the  parents  of  the  deceased  

husband of any connection with the offence under Section 302 IPC,  

and no common intention can be inferred.   So far as  the dowry  

demands and offence under  Section 498A goes,  the High Court  

opined  that  even  the  father  of  the  deceased  wife  namely  the  

Appellant/Complainant in his Statement confined the demand only  

to  his  deceased  son-in-law.   Holding this  to  be  insufficient  the  

Respondents Nos.2 and 3 have been discharged.  

5. There can be no cavil that if a fine is imposed on an accused/convict  

even upon the death of an accused his estate will continue to be  

liable for its discharge.  This is not the case before us inasmuch as  

that stage in the prosecution has not been arrived at.  In any event  

the pecuniary liability of the deceased/ convict can be fastened only  

on  the  beneficiaries  of  his  legal  estate.   There  is  no  evidence  

whatsoever that this is the position that obtains in the present case.  

6. The Charge Sheet does not indicate any complicity so far as the  

parents of the deceased are concerned.  Obviously, if the murder has  

been  committed  in Pondicherry a  direct  role  in that  unfortunate  

event cannot be  ascribed to  them.  Of course,  it  is  theoretically  

possible that they may have abetted or conspired in the crime or  

persuaded their son to have perpetrated the crime.  However this  

5

Page 6

version is not forthcoming from the Charge Sheet.  The Appellant,  

in his Further Statement, has alleged that – “on the last 25.03.06  

night as per the plans of Ramachandra Reddy, his father Vidyasagar  

Reddy and mother Naarasamma, Ramachandra Reddy had killed my  

daughter Sujatha brutally at a Hotel at Pondicherry due to dowry  

harassment.  ….”   This  is  the  only statement  which contains  an  

allegation pertaining to  the possible conspiracy of the husband’s  

parents who, it must be kept in focus, were not in Pondicherry at the  

time when Sujatha  was  done  to  death  by her  husband.   In  our  

opinion, it  is  not sufficient to merely make a  bald statement but  

further catenation should exist linking all the conspirators together.  

Sifting through the evidence,  i.e.,  the Statement made by several  

witnesses, there is no direct imputation that either of the Respondent  

nos.2 and 3 before us had either independently or along with their  

deceased son, made a demand for dowry.  We should not lose sight  

of the fact that the deceased couple had earlier been living with the  

unfortunate wife’s family, and thereafter independently of either of  

the parents-in-law.   In fact, as has been noted by the High Court in  

the impugned order the statement of the complainant father of the  

deceased, some demands have been made by his son-in-law.   Out  

attention has been drawn to a recent Judgment titled Central Bureau  

of Investigation v. K. Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512, wherein  

6

Page 7

after discussing the previous opinions of this Court in a number of  

cases including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC  

335, it was opined that in order to make good the commission of an  

offence  of  criminal  conspiracy,  it  should  be  evident  that  an  

agreement between the conspirators should have been in existence  

at the material time.  

7. Our attention has been drawn to Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v.  

Dilip Nathumal Chordia and Anr. (1989) 1 SCC 715 as well as K.  

Narayana Rao but we are unable to appreciate any manner in which  

they would persuade  a  Court  to  continue the prosecution of  the  

parents  of  the  deceased.   After  considering  Union  of  India  v.  

Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4, this Court has expounded  

the law in these words :

“14. ……  In fact, Section 227, itself contains enough guidelines  

as  to the scope  of enquiry for the purpose  of discharging an  

accused.   It  provides that ‘the judge shall discharge when he  

considers  that  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  proceeding  

against  the  accused’.   The  ‘ground’  in  the  context  is  not  a  

ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on  

trial.  It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused  

will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge.  The  

court,  therefore,  need  not  undertake  an  elaborate  enquiry in  

sifting and weighing the material.  Nor is it necessary to delve  

deep into various aspects.  All that the court has to consider is  

7

Page 8

whether the evidentiary material on record if generally accepted,  

would reasonably connect the accused with the crime.  No more  

need be enquired into.”

The Court is neither a substitute nor an adjunct of the prosecution.  On the  

contrary, once a case is presented to it by the prosecution, its bounden  

duty is to sift through the material to ascertain whether a prima facie case  

has been established which would justify and merit the prosecution of a  

person.  The interest of a person arraigned as an accused must also be kept  

in  perspective  lest,  on  the  basis  of  flippant  or  vague  or  vindicative  

accusations, bereft of probative evidence, the ordeals of a trial have to be  

needlessly suffered and endured.  We hasten to clarify that we think the  

statements of the complainant are those of an anguished father who has  

lost his daughter due to the greed and cruelty of his son-in-law.  As we  

have already noted, the husband has taken his own life possibly in remorse  

and repentance.  The death of a child even to avaricious parents is the  

worst conceivable punishment.  

8. Since the prosecution would be an exercise in futility it should be  

brought to  a  quick end;  and this is  possible  only if an order  of  

discharge vis-à-vis the parents  who are  the remaining accused is  

passed.  This is exactly what has transpired in the wisdom of the  

High Court by means of the impugned Order.  We find no error  

therein.  Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.   

8

Page 9

.......................................J. [T.S. THAKUR]

.......................................J.                                            [VIKRAMAJIT SEN] New Delhi October 24, 2013

9