IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 810 OF 2004

SHARADBHAI JIVANLAL VANIYA       …. APPELLANT

   Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT               .... RESPONDENT

O R D E R  

1. The  appellant  was  put  on  trial  for  commission  of  the  

offence  under  Sections  498-A  and 304-B read  with  Section  

114  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code.   Additional  Sessions  Judge,  

Rajkot,  by judgment dated 22nd of January, 1997 passed in  

Sessions  Case  No.138  of  1991,  acquitted  the  appellant.  

Aggrieved by  the  same,  State  of  Gujarat  preferred  Criminal  

Appeal No. 335 of 1997 and the High Court by the impugned  

judgment dated 6th of May, 2004 and 23rd June, 2004 set aside  

the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant for offence  

under Section 306 of  the Indian Penal  Code and sentenced  

him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.  He was  

also held guilty of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian  

Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment  

for one and a half years.  

2. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this  

appeal.

3. According  to  the  prosecution,  appellant  had  married  

Binaben, the daughter of Jaysukhlal about two years before  

her death.  She was ill-treated by the appellant and his mother  

Jayaben for demand of dowry and for that reason on 2nd of  

June, 1990, Binaben committed suicide by setting herself on  

fire.   A case was registered and after investigation, the police  

submitted  charge-sheet  against  the  appellant.  Ultimately  he  

was committed to the Court of Sessions where he was charged  

of  offence  punishable  under  Section  498-A and 304-B read  

with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.  The Trial Court on  

appreciation  of  evidence  held  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  

cruelty  or harassment  in connection with demand of  dowry  

and accordingly acquitted him on both the counts.  On appeal  

by  the  State,  as  stated  earlier,  the  High  Court  reversed  

the  finding  of  acquittal  and  convicted  the  appellant  

as above.   While    reversing    the    judgment    of    acquittal,  

2

the High Court has relied upon a letter (Ex.-21) written by the  

deceased to her sister-in-law.   In the said letter, the deceased  

has stated that her husband had beaten her and asked her to  

take divorce.  Further the appellant is pressing hard to leave  

the matrimonial home and go to Jamnagar, her parental place.

4. Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  

appellant  submits  that  the  letter  which  forms  the  basis  of  

conviction by the Appellate Court was never produced during  

the investigation and for the first time produced by the witness  

during the course of trial, when she appeared as a witness.  It  

is submitted that authenticity of the letter in question has not  

been proved and hence the appellate Court ought not to have  

reversed  the  judgment  of  acquittal  and  convicted  the  

appellant.   In support of the submission, reliance has been  

placed on a decision of this Court in Anand Kumar vs. State  

of Madhya Pradesh (2009) 3 SCC 799 and our attention has  

been drawn to the following paragraph of this judgment :

9.     “….     ….Moreover, this letter had not been   produced before the police during the course of the   initial investigation and had been handed over to the   police  after  several  months.   This  fact,  as  also  a  reading  of  the  letter,  indicates  that  this  was  a  

3

concocted piece of evidence and the work of a legal   mind, as no person would write such a letter meeting  all legal requirements for implicating himself and his  near relatives, in a claim for dowry.”

It has also been pointed out that view taken by the Trial Court  

was one of the possible views which the High Court in appeal  

ought not to have reversed.   

5. Ms.  Jesal,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

respondent,  however,  submits  that  the letter  written by the  

deceased  to  her  sister-in-law  clearly  shows  cruelty  and  

harassment  due  to  demand of   dowry  and  the  High  Court  

rightly reversed the order of acquittal to that of conviction.

6. We  have  bestowed  our  consideration  to  the  rival  

submissions and we find substance in the submission of Mr.  

Nanavati and the judgment relied on supports his submission.  

7. As observed earlier, the High Court reversed the finding  

of  acquittal  mainly  relying  on  the  letter  written  by  the  

deceased  to  her  sister-in-law.   The  said  letter  was  not  

produced  during  the  course  of  investigation  and  there  is  

4

nothing on record to establish its authenticity.  It is produced  

by the prosecution only during the course of evidence.  In our  

opinion, the order of acquittal ought not to have been reversed  

relying  on  unauthenticated  letter.   We  are  further  of  the  

opinion that the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting  

the appellant was one of the possible views.  In view of what  

we  have  observed  above,  we  feel  it  unsafe  to  sustain  the  

conviction of the appellant and give him the benefit of doubt.  

The appellant is on bail.   He shall be discharged of his bail  

bonds.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment  

of  conviction  and  sentence  is  set  aside  with  the  direction  

aforesaid.  

……….………………………………..J.                               ( HARJIT SINGH BEDI )

..........………………………………..J.                                           ( CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD ) NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 17, 2011.

5