Non -  Reportable    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL   Nos  . 1013-1014   of   2008

Sham Lal             ....  Appellant    

Versus

The State of Haryana Etc.        …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. According  to  the  FIR  registered  pursuant  to  the

statement  of  PW-9  Pawan  Kumar,  the  brother  of  the

deceased,  his  sister  Usha  was  married  to  the  Appellant-

Sham Lal  in  December,  1990.    The Appellant  demanded

dowry of  Rs.1,00,000/-  after  two months of  the marriage.

Rs.50,000/- was arranged and given to the Appellant.  The

deceased - Usha complained to her family members that her

mother-in-law- Ganga Devi, her husband- Sham Lal and her

1

brothers-in-law- Krishan Lal and Ved Prakash were harassing

her for  not bringing sufficient dowry.   A female child was

born  to  the  deceased-  Usha and gifts  were  given  by  her

family in accordance with custom.  Appellant and his family

were not  satisfied with the gifts.   The informant received

information on    28th September, 1992 that his sister and

her child had died due to burn injuries.  They rushed to the

house of the Appellant and found Usha and her daughter

dead.  Inquest was conducted by the investigating officer

and the bodies were sent for post-mortem.      A site plan of

the occurrence scene was prepared and a can containing

three liters of kerosene oil,  burnt hair and pieces of burnt

cloth  were seized by the Sub-Inspector  of  Police.   A final

report  was  filed  on  completion  of  the  investigation  and

charges were framed against the four accused i.e. Appellant,

his mother and two brothers under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of the IPC and in the alternative, under Sections

304-B  and  498-A  of  the  IPC.   As  there  was  no  evidence

pointed to the murder of Usha and her child by the accused-

Appellant, the trial court opined that Section 302 read with

Section 34 IPC was not proved.  Insofar as the alternative

2

charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A were concerned,

the  trial  court  examined  the  prosecution  version  of  the

demand of Rs.1,00,000/-  made by the Appellant after  the

marriage  and  the  payment  of  Rs.50,000/-  by  the  family

members of the deceased.  Pawan Kumar(PW-9), brother of

the deceased deposed in his evidence that he contributed

Rs.20,000/-  along with   his  brother  Ganga Ram who also

contributed Rs.20,000/-.  Another brother gave Rs.10,000/-.

In all, Rs.50,000/- was collected amongst the brothers of the

deceased and paid to the Appellant to meet the demand of

dowry made two months after the marriage.  Pawan Kumar

stated  that  he  raised  a  loan  of  Rs.10,000/-  from the Co-

operative Bank, Lakhan Majra for the sum to be paid to the

Appellant.  The trial court examined the testimony of Maya

Chand Kalia (DW-3),  the  Branch  Manager  of  the  Co-

operative  Bank  who  stated  that  Pawan  Kumar  became  a

member of the bank only on  7th March, 1992 and obtained a

loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the bank on 25th June, 1992.  PW-

9’s evidence that he raised a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the

bank in February, 1991 was disbelieved by the trial court.

The trial court discussed the evidence of Pawan Kumar (PW-

3

9) and Ganga Ram (PW-11), the brothers of the deceased

who stated that there was no demand made on behalf of the

Appellant’s family either prior to the marriage or during the

marriage.  A detailed analysis of the evidence on record led

the trial court to conclude  that the demand made by the

Appellant and the payment made by Pawan Kumar and his

brother Ganga Ram was not proved.  The trial  court took

further  notice  of  the  fact  that  the  Appellant  and  the

deceased  were  living  separately  on  the  first  floor  of  the

house.  They also had separate ration cards.           A dispute

between the Appellant and the deceased was referred to a

panchayat on  13th October,  1991. During  the  Panchayat,

a document (Ex.-DA) was executed in which it was stated

that any further dispute arising between the parties will be

settled by the panchayat.  The investigating officer stated in

his evidence that the information about the un-natural death

of Usha and the child was given by Krishan Lal- elder brother

of  Sham Lal.  Though the death was caused within  seven

years of marriage, the trial court was of the opinion that the

prosecution  was  unable  to  prove  cruelty  on  part  of  the

4

Appellant and the other accused.  On the said findings, the

trial court acquitted all the accused.   

2. While affirming the acquittal of Ganga Devi, Krishan Lal

and Ved Prakash, the High Court reversed the acquittal of

the  Appellant  and  convicted  him  for  offences  punishable

under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced him to

imprisonment for seven years.   In  Sheo Swarup v.  King

Emperor1, Lord Russell said:

“….the High Court should and will always give

proper  weight  and  consideration  to  such

matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to

the  credibility  of  the  witnesses;  (2)  the

presumption  of  innocence  in  favour  of  the

accused,  a  presumption  certainly  not

weakened  by  the  fact  that  he  has  been

acquitted  at  his  trial;  (3)  the  right  of  the

accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4)

the  slowness  of  an  appellate  court  in

disturbing  a  finding  of  fact  arrived  at  by  a

1 AIR 1934 PC 227 (2)

5

Judge who had the advantage of  seeing the

witnesses.”   

3.  The law is well settled that an acquittal by the trial

court  should  not  be  interfered  with  unless  it  is  totally

perverse or wholly unsustainable.  We proceed to examine

whether the trial court was right in reversing the acquittal of

the Appellant.   The High Court  held that  the evidence of

PWs-9 and 11 was not appreciated in a proper perspective

by the trial court.  While placing reliance on the evidence of

PWs-9 and 11, the High Court was of the opinion that the

family  members  of  the  deceased  paid  Rs.50,000/-  to  the

Appellant  as  dowry.    The Trial  Court’s  opinion that  PW-9

miserably failed to prove the source of the money paid to

the Appellant was ignored by the High Court.  It is clear from

the evidence of DW-3 that PW-9 became a member of the

Co-operative Bank only in the year 1992 and raised a loan

from the bank on  20th May,  1992.   The statement  in  his

evidence that he raised a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the bank

in  February,  1991  to  pay  to  the  Appellant  is  false  and

misleading.

6

4. There is no perversity in the judgment of the trial court

in  its  finding  that  the  prosecution  was  unable  to  prove

cruelty on the part of the Appellant and the other accused.

The High Court committed an error in reaching a different

conclusion regarding the cruelty by observing that there was

a  demand  of  Rs.1,00,000/-  by  the  Appellant  pursuant  to

which Rs.50,000/- was paid by the family members of the

deceased.   The  High  Court  went  wrong  in  upsetting  the

findings  of  the  trial  court  regarding  payment  of  dowry.

Possibility of another view cannot be a ground for reversing

acquittal by the Appellate Court.  That apart, the conclusion

arrived at by the High Court is completely contrary to the

record.   

5. For  the  aforementioned  reasons,  the  Appeals  are

allowed and the conviction of the Appellant is set aside.   

                          ..................................J.

             [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..................................J.               [M.R.SHAH]

New Delhi, April 09,  2019.   

7