Page 1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2280 of 2009

S. Govidaraju                              …Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka                                        …Respondent

 J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order  

dated 6.6.2007, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore  

in Criminal Appeal No.1146 of 2000, preferred by the State against  

the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Bangalore city dated  

8.6.2000,  passed  in  Sessions  Case  No.550 of  1995,  by  which  and  

whereunder,  the  appellant  stood acquitted  of  all  the  charges  under  

Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter  

referred to as ‘IPC) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition  

Act  (hereinafter  called  the  ‘DP  Act’).  The  High  Court  on  appeal

Page 2

convicted  the  appellant  under  Section  304B  IPC  and  awarded  a  

sentence of 7 years; under Section 498A IPC awarded the sentence for  

a period of 3 years and also a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed,  and in  

default, to undergo further sentence of 6 months. The appellant was  

also convicted under Section 3 of  DP Act and imprisonment for  a  

period of 5 years was awarded alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in  

default to undergo imprisonment for one year; under Section 4 of DP  

Act,  imprisonment for a period of 6 months was awarded and a fine  

of Rs.10,000/- was imposed, in default, to undergo imprisonment for 3  

months.  However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

A. The appellant  got  married to  one Shanthi  on 16.9.1994.  The  

marriage  was  negotiated  by  their  parents  at  the  house  of  one  

Jayasingh.  The  parents  of  Shanthi  gave  7  to  8  gold  ornaments  

including a neck chain and a ring to the appellant in the marriage.  

After  the  marriage,  the  appellant  and Shanthi  were  residing  at  the  

appellant’s  house  bearing  no.93,  2nd Cross,  Basaveshwara  Nagar,  

Magadi Road, Bangalore.  It was only at a distance of one kilometre  

from her parents’ house.  It is alleged that Shanthi was ill-treated by  

2

Page 3

the appellant  and also physically and mentally tortured,  demanding  

more dowry.

B. On 14.12.1994,  the  appellant  quarrelled  with  Shanthi  on  the  

ground that she had taken Rs.50/- from his shirt pocket without his  

consent.  Shanthi committed suicide by pouring kerosene  and setting  

herself  ablaze.   She  was  taken  to  Victoria  Hospital,  Bangalore,  

however, she died at about 7 p.m. on the same day.  As it was a case  

of unnatural death, the post-mortem was conducted on the dead body  

of Shanthi on 15.12.1994 and in the opinion of Dr. B.R.S. Kashyap  

(PW.17), the cause of death was shock as a result of burns sustained.  

About 95% ante-mortem burns were noticed.

C. Sundaresh  (PW.1),  father  of   deceased  Shanthi  lodged  a  

complaint on 16.12.1994 alleging that the appellant was responsible  

for the death of his daughter Shanthi and in view thereof, the Police  

registered an FIR in case No.773 of 1994 under Sections 498A and  

304B  IPC.   The  appellant  was  arrested  on  17.12.1994.   The  

investigation commenced and charge-sheet was filed under Sections  

498A,  304B  IPC  and  3,  4  and  6  of  DP  Act  and  the  matter  was  

committed to Sessions.

3

Page 4

D. During  the  trial,  17  witnesses  were  examined  by  the  

prosecution.   The star  witnesses  were  Sundaresh (PW.1),  father  of  

deceased Shanthi,  Manimaran (PW.2), brother of deceased Shanthi,  

and Sakkubai (PW.6), mother of deceased.  In addition thereto, the  

other  witnesses  were  Smt.  M.  Sarala  Somaiah,  (PW.15),  I.O.,  Dr.  

B.R.S.  Kashyap  (PW.17)  who  conducted  the  post-mortem  

examination.  The appellant was examined at the verge of conclusion  

of trial under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘Cr.P.C.’)  and  vide  judgment  and  order  

dated 8.6.2000, the appellant was acquitted of all the charges.

E. Aggrieved, the State preferred an appeal before the High Court  

which has  been allowed vide  impugned judgment  and order  dated  

6.6.2007.

Hence, this appeal.

3. Mr. Rohat Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant  

has submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate the judgment of  

the  Trial  Court  in  the  correct  perspective  and  interfered  with  the  

judgment  and  order  of  acquittal  passed  by  the  Trial  Court  in  

contravention of the parameters laid down by this Court. There had  

4

Page 5

been material contradictions in the statements of PWs.1, 2, 6 and 7.  

Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly passed the order of acquittal.  

The  FIR itself  was  lodged  on  16.12.1994  though  Shanthi  died  on  

14.12.1994.  The question of dowry demand would not arise.  The  

statement  made  by  Sarasa,  sister  of  deceased  before  her  family  

members  was  accepted  by  the  High  Court  without  realising  that  

Sarasa was not examined by the prosecution.  The High Court failed  

to appreciate that when two views are possible, the view beneficial to  

the accused must be accepted. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be  

allowed.

4. Per contra, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel for the State  

has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that Shanthi, a 20 year  

old girl  died within 3 months of  her  marriage in  the house of  the  

appellant.  Therefore, the incident was within the special knowledge  

of the appellant and he failed to explain how Shanthi had died.  The  

appellant  doubted  the  fidelity  of  Shanthi  alleging  that  she  had  

developed  illicit  relations  with  Raju,  a  friend  of  her  brother  

Manimaran (PW.2) and got pregnant before their marriage and  that is  

why  she  had  committed  suicide.   Though  the  medical  report  

specifically  revealed  that  Shanthi  was  not  pregnant,  the  doubt  

5

Page 6

harboured  in  the  mind  of  the  appellant  would  itself  a  ground  for  

torturing Shanthi,  which had driven her to commit suicide.  Law is  

well settled that in case the findings recorded by the Trial Court are  

perverse,  the  order  of  acquittal  can  be  interfered  by  the  Appellate  

Court.   Thus, in view of the above, no interference is called for.  The  

appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

5. We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  made  by  learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The case of the prosecution had been that Shanthi was treated in  

a hostile and cruel manner by the appellant who asked her to bring  

additional gold articles which drove her to commit suicide. She had  

also been assaulted by the accused/appellant on 14.2.1994 suspecting  

that she had taken Rs.50/- from his pocket without his consent. The  

undisputed facts remain that Shanthi was residing at 1 Km. distance  

from her parents’ house and she had been visiting the said  family  

quite often and died within a period of three months of her marriage  

as she suffered from 95% burn injuries.  

7. Sundaresh (PW.1), father of the deceased deposed that about  

one month earlier to her marriage, the marriage talks were held at the  

6

Page 7

house of Jayasingh, a relative of the appellant-accused and his parents  

had demanded 10 sovereign gold ornaments as dowry. He could give  

only some lesser gold ornaments then what had been demanded.  That  

after one month of marriage, when Shanthi, deceased, had come to his  

house and told him that she was beaten by her husband and asked to  

bring the balance 4 sovereign gold ornaments from her parents.   

8. Manimaran (PW.2), brother of the deceased, deposed that about  

6  months  prior  to  the  marriage,  talks  were  held  at  the  house  of  

Jayasingh  and  his  parents  had  demanded  10  sovereign  gold  

ornaments. Gold necklace, jumuki, gold ring and silver leg chain were  

given in the marriage alongwith other articles like wrist watch, clothes  

and almirah etc.  About 15-20 days prior to the death of Shanthi, some  

neighbours had informed his family that there were always quarrels  

and galata between the appellant and his sister Shanthi in their house.  

His  other  sister  Sarasa,  who  had   visited  the  house  of  Shanthi-  

deceased,  told him that her husband was often quarrelling with her  

saying that the dowry gold articles given at the time of marriage were  

not sufficient and the same were of less quantity.

7

Page 8

9. Sakkubai (PW.6), mother of the deceased,  deposed that talks  

for marriage took place six months prior to the marriage at the house  

of  Jayasingh  and appellant’s  parents  and  uncles  had  demanded 10  

sovereign gold ornaments but they expressed their ability to give only  

7-8 sovereign gold ornaments.  She corroborated the version of other  

witnesses  about  the  quarrels  and  galata  between  the  appellant  and  

Shanthi,  deceased.  That  after  her  marriage  Shanthi  did  not  have  a  

peaceful married life and it had been revealed by Shanthi herself to  

the witness that quarrels used to take place frequently between them.  

Shanthi, deceased, had visited her parents’ house 7-8 times.

10. Hamsaveni (PW.5) deposed that talks for marriage took place at  

the house of Jayasingh about 1-1/2 months earlier to the marriage but  

she did not depose about the demand of gold ornaments.   

11.  Bhuvaneshwari (PW.7) who was tenant of Sundaresh (PW.1),  

deposed that when Shanthi visited her parents’ house, she had told her  

that quarrels and galata used to take place between Shanthi and her  

husband as he had been demanding gold ring etc.    

12. The aforesaid evidence reveals the following facts:

8

Page 9

I) The talk  of  marriage  was  held  at  the  house  of  Jayasingh,  a  

relative of the appellant/accused.

II) The version of the aforesaid witnesses in respect  of the time  

when  the  talks  took place  varied  between  one  month  to  six  

months.   

III) The demand of 10 sovereign gold ornaments by the appellant  

from the parents of deceased Shanthi had been revealed in the  

depositions  of  Sundaresh  (PW.1),  Manimaran  (PW.2)  and  

Sakkubai  (PW.6).   The  deposition  of  Hamsaveni  (PW.5)  in  

regard to such demand is silent.

IV) In respect of cruelty, Sundaresh (PW.1) deposed that he got this  

information from Shanthi, deceased herself, though, Manimaran  

(PW.2) deposed that he came to know about it from his sister  

Sarasa.  Sakkubai (PW.6) and Bhuvaneshwari (PW.7) deposed  

that regarding the demand of dowry and cruelty, they had been  

informed by Shanthi, deceased.   

13. The Trial Court appreciated the aforesaid evidence and found  

that  the  time  with  regard  to  the  negotiations  of  marriage  varied  

between one month and six months prior to marriage.  There were  

contradictions,  in  this  respect  in  the statements  of  witnesses.   The  

9

Page 10

demand of  quantity  of  gold varied from 7-10 sovereign as  per  the  

version given by the witnesses.  Sakkubai (PW.6) has also deposed in  

respect of the demand made by the uncles of the accused and such  

version  has  not  been  given  by  Sundaresh  (PW.1)  and  Manimaran  

(PW.2). Different versions had been given in respect of description of  

articles of gold ornaments by Sundaresh (PW.1), Manimaran (PW.2).,  

and Sakkubai (PW.6), i.e., as to whether it was a necklace, Jumuki,  

ring or silver leg chain.  Sundaresh (PW.1) did not mention the fact  

while lodging the FIR that negotiation of marriage took place at the  

house  of  Jayasingh  but  he  had  specifically  mentioned  therein  that  

there was a demand of 8 to 10 sovereign gold.

In  view  of  aforesaid  findings,  the  trial  court  came  to  the  

conclusion  that  there  had  been  material  contradictions  in  the  

statements of the witnesses on material issues and therefore the same  

could not be relied upon. Hence, the court accorded acquittal.  

14. The High Court reversed the findings of fact observing that the  

same  were  perverse  and  there  were  no  material  contradictions  

whatsoever  as the material aspects of the case had been whether there  

was a demand of gold articles at the time of negotiations of marriage  

1

Page 11

and whether  subsequent  to  marriage  Shanthi  was  ill-treated  by the  

appellant.   

15. It  is  a  settled  legal  proposition  that  in  exceptional  

circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not  

hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below,  

if  the  findings  so  recorded  by  the  court  below  are  found  to  be  

perverse,  i.e.  if  the  conclusions  arrived  at  by  the  court  below are  

contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court’s entire approach  

with  respect  to  dealing  with  the  evidence  is  found  to  be  patently  

illegal,  leading  to  the  miscarriage  of  justice,  or  if  its  judgment  is  

unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law  

and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellate court must  

bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused,  

and  also  that  an  acquittal  by  the  court  below  bolsters  such  

presumption of innocence.  

16. The time when the talks of marriage were held and the place  

where the negotiations took place are totally irrelevant.  More so, the  

marriage  took  place  in  September  1994,  incident  occurred  on  

14.12.1994 and evidence  of  the  witnesses  was  recorded in  August  

1999 i.e. after 5 years of the date of marriage.  Thus, it may not be  

1

Page 12

possible for the witnesses to remember dates etc. exactly at such a  

belated stage. The quantity of gold demanded by the accused side may  

vary as per the versions of the prosecution witnesses but the demand  

was there which is the most material issue to be examined in the case.  

Further, it is also immaterial  as to whether the uncles of the accused  

also joined  negotiations in this regard as stated by Sakkubai (PW.6).  

In the FIR, if the issue of demand had been mentioned. It may not be  

fatal if it had not been mentioned therein that negotiations took place  

at the house of Jayasingh for the reason that the place of negotiation is  

totally  immaterial  as  it  has  no relevance to  determine the  issue  of  

demand. If the description of ornaments varied to a limited extent in  

the  versions  of  the  prosecution  witnesses,  it  remains  of  no  

consequence  for  the reason that  people  may not  remember  exactly  

what had been given.   

17. Similarly, in respect of the issue of cruelty, it could not be held  

to  be any contradiction if  Sundaresh  (PW.1)  and Sakkubai  (PW.6)  

deposed  that  Shanthi,  deceased  herself  told  them  and  Manimaran  

(PW.2)  deposed  that  she  was  informed by  his  other  sister  Sarasa.  

We do not see any contradiction, forget material contradictions on the  

basis of which the Trial Court had granted acquittal.  

1

Page 13

18. It is well settled legal proposition that while appreciating the  

evidence,  the  court  has  to  take  into  consideration  whether  the  

contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially  

affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments  

or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not effect the  

core of the case of the prosecution, must not be made a ground for  

rejection  of  evidence  in  its  entirety.  The  trial  court,  after  going  

through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the  

credibility  of  the  witnesses,  and  the  appellate  court  in  the  normal  

course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without  

providing  justifiable  reasons  for  doing  so.  Where  the  omission(s)  

amount  to  a  contradiction,  creating  a  serious  doubt  regarding  the  

truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material  

improvements  before  the  court  in  order  to  make  the  evidence  

acceptable,  it  would not  be safe  to  rely upon such evidence.   The  

discrepancies  in  the  evidence  of  eyewitnesses,  if  found  not  to  be  

minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting  

their evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire  

confidence  and  if  their  evidence  is  found  to  be  in  conflict  and  

contradiction with other evidence available or with a statement that  

1

Page 14

has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that  

the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.  

19. The  defence  version  has  been  that  Shanthi,  deceased,  had  

developed illicit relations with one Raju, a close friend of her brother  

Manimaran (PW.2) and was pregnant at the time of marriage.  The  

Trial Court accepted this version in spite of the fact that the medical  

evidence was otherwise. Dr. B.R.S. Kashyap (PW.17) mentioned in  

the  post-mortem  report  (Ex.P-12)  that  the  uterus  was  intact.  

Subsequently, an explanation was specifically sought on 2.2.1995 as  

to whether Shanthi was pregnant at the time of death. Dr. Kashyap  

(PW.17) opined that she was not pregnant at the time of post-mortem  

examination.  Dr. Kashyap (PW.17) denied the suggestion that he had  

issued report (Ex.P-14) in collusion with the complainant to the effect  

that she was not pregnant.   

20. The Trial Court placed reliance on the medical history (Ex.P-

10) mentioned in the Accident Register of the hospital that Shanthi  

had 3 months pregnancy.  We have examined the original documents  

also, there is nothing on record to show as at whose behest remarks  

had been recorded therein.   

1

Page 15

Thus, the finding of the Trial Court about pregnancy of Shanthi  

recorded by the Trial Court is not worth acceptance.   

21. In the instant case, we have explained hereinabove that none of  

the  contradictions  found  by  the  trial  court  could  be  labelled  as  

major/material contradictions.  Therefore, the finding of the trial court  

to  the  extent  that  there  was  material  contradiction,  is  not  worth  

acceptance.   

22. The appellant-accused denied all the questions put to him in his  

examination  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C.  and  did  not  furnish  any  

explanation whatsoever to any question.  He did not give any version  

about  the  incident,  rather  pleaded  a  false  defence  that  Shanthi,  

deceased, had developed illicit relationship with Raju, a friend of her  

brother  Manimaran,  (PW.2)  and was  pregnant  before  marriage.  To  

question no. 32, as to whether he wanted to say anything, his reply  

was only `No’.   

23. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined  

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to furnish some explanation with respect to  

the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court  

must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial  

1

Page 16

evidence in order to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances  

is  complete.   When  the  attention  of  the  accused  is  drawn  to  

circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of the  

crime, and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation, or gives a false  

answer  with  respect  to  the  same,  the  said  act  may  be  counted  as  

providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances.  

(Vide: Munish Mabar v State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912).

24. This Court in  Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, JT 2013  

(8) SC 181 held as under:

“Undoubtedly,  the  prosecution  has  to  prove  its   case  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  However,  in  certain circumstances, the accused has to furnish   some  explanation  to  the  incriminating   circumstances, which has come in evidence, put   to him. A false explanation may be counted as   providing a missing link for completing a chain of   circumstances”.                           (Emphasis added)

25. The  prosecution  successfully  proved  its  case  and,  therefore,  

provisions of Section 113 of the Evidence Act 1872 come into play.  

The appellant/accused did not make any attempt, whatsoever, to rebut  

the said presumption contained therein. More so, Shanthi, deceased,  

died in the house of the appellant.  He did not disclose as where he  

had  been  at  the  time  of  incident.   In  such  a  fact-situation,  the  

1

Page 17

provisions  of  Section  106  of  Evidence  Act  may  also  be  made  

applicable as the appellant/accused had special knowledge regarding  

such facts, though he failed to furnish any explanation thus, the court  

could  draw an adverse inference against him.  

26. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the Trial Court  

on  each  issue  had  been  perverse  and  the  High  Court  has  rightly  

reversed  the  said  findings.   The  conduct  of  the  appellant/accused  

during the trial  also disentitled him of any indulgence whatsoever.  

The appeal lacks merit, and is, accordingly dismissed.  The appellant-

accused is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He must surrender  

within  a  period  of  four  weeks  from  today  failing  which  the  III  

Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, CCH No.25 shall take him  

in custody to serve out the remaining sentence. A copy of the order be  

sent  to  the  learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge  for  information  and  

compliance.  

….………………..........J.  (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)  

…...................................J.                                                (S.A. BOBDE)  

NEW DELHI;  August 19, 2013       

1

Page 18

1