Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   937 OF 2006    

S. ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR GANNA  … APPELLANT

VERUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant  

against the judgment dated 4th  January, 2006 in Criminal  

Appeal No.1042 of 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge  

of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, whereby the  

learned Single Judge reversed the judgment of acquittal  

dated 2nd  August, 1999 passed by the Xth Additional City  

Sessions Judge at Bangalore in S.C.No.86 /96 and convicted  

and sentenced the appellant for the offences under Section  

304­B and Section 498­A of the IPC.

Page 2

2

The Appellate Court imposed sentence of rigorous  

imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable  

under Section 304­B of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment  

for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/­, in  

default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months  

for the offence punishable under Section 498­A of the IPC.  

The Appellate Court further ordered that the sentences  

shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated below:

The complainant­Parasmal's sister Meena Kumari was  

married to accused No.1, Anil Kumar on 13th December, 1990.  

In relation to the said marriage a demand was made by  

accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 for dowry of an amount of  

Rs.1,50,000/­ and gold weighing 800 gms. It was agreed by  

the bride's party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/­ and 500 gms.  

of gold as dowry and, accordingly, the marriage was  

performed. After the marriage, Meena Kumari came to know  

that her husband Anil Kumar, accused No.1 (appellant  

herein) had developed illicit intimacy with accused No.2,  

Sumithra alias Savitri, wife of Kailaschand, (PW­8).  

After some time, accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 began to treat

Page 3

3

Meena Kumari with cruelty since she failed to bring the  

amount demanded by accused No.1 for expansion of his  

business.   Whenever Meena Kumari came to her  brother's  

house, she complained about ill treatment meted out to her  

by accused No.1. After some days, the amount demanded by  

accused No.1 was given, but his demand did not subside. On  

20th  January, 1992 at about 7.00 a.m., Meena Kumari took  

milk and went inside her house. After some time,  accused  

No.1, Anil Kumar left the house. Thereafter Meena Kumari  

came out of the house and requested Smt. Kamalamma, a  

neighbour to bring a nipple for putting the same to tap.  

When Kamalamma brought the nipple, she found the door of  

the house closed.  Meena Kumari did not open the door in  

spite of knocking by  Kamalamma. At that time, Sarojamma,  

(PW­6) was also present. At about 9.00 a.m. the mother of  

PW­6, Kailas and Anil Kumar came and knocked the door, but  

the door was not opened.  Despite their efforts, door was  

not opened and there was no response from inside.  

Therefore, Anil Kumar put his hand through the ventilator  

and unlatched the door and opened it. When they went  

inside, they found that Meena Kumari had hanged herself  

from the fan and had committed suicide. The news spread

Page 4

4

and later, a friend of the accused Sri Shanthilal (PW­9)  

came and he gave on phone a message to Meena Kumari's  

elder brother S.   Parasmal (PW­1), who was residing in  

Mysore. Intimation sent to him was that Meena Kumari was  

seriously ill and they should come immediately. On their  

way to Bangalore, Parasmal (PW­1), learnt that Meena  

Kumari had committed suicide. They reached the house of  

the accused at about 5.00 p.m. and after ascertaining the  

matter, Parasmal    (PW­1) went to the Police Station and  

informed the Police. The Police came to the house and  

after inspecting the spot, took the complaint of PW­1. On  

the basis of the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.33/92  

against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Sri. M.V. Chengappa, PSI,  

Hebbal Police Station (PW­23) started with the  

investigation and further investigation was taken up by,  

Praveena, ACP, Yeshwanthpur Sub­Division (PW­24). The  

investigation disclosed that accused Nos.3 to 5 were also  

involved in the matter. Therefore, they were added in the  

list of the accused. After further investigation by S.V.D.  

Souza (PW­25), Police Inspector, ADC, COD, Bangalore and  

his successor,   B. Venkataramana, Police Inspector, ADC,  

COD, Bangalore (PW­26) a chargesheet was placed against

Page 5

5

the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498­

A and 304­B of the IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry  

Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges and  

claimed to be tried.  The prosecution examined in all 26  

witnesses and closed its case.  As per prosecution PWs­1,  

10,11,12,13,15  and 18 were examined with  regard to the  

payment of dowry. To substantiate the allegation of the  

dowry harassment they examined PWs­10,11,12,13,14,16 and  

21 and other witnesses who saw the body hanging with fan.  

PWs­2, 7 and 19 were Panch witnesses. PW­17, Dr.  

Thirunavakkarasu was the Professor, Forensic Medicine, who  

conducted the post­mortem examination. PW­21, was the  

Taluk Executive Magistrate, who conducted inquest  

proceedings. PWs.22 to 26 are the Police Officers.  

4. The accused in their statements under 313 Cr.P.C.  

denied  the allegations  made against them. On behalf of  

defence one Vimal Kumar (DW­1) was examined to show that  

there was no demand for dowry and no harassment was made  

to Meena Kumari. It was suggested on behalf of the defence  

that Meena Kumari had extra affinity towards PW­10, Ashok

Page 6

6

Kumar Jain and perhaps on the objection raised by the  

accused she might have committed suicide.  

5.  The trial court on appreciation of evidence on record  

came to hold that the statements of material witnesses,  

PW­1 and PW­12 and some others are contradictory and there  

statements are not trustworthy. In view of such finding  

the trial court acquitted the accused of all the charges  

levelled against them.   

6. One of the reasons shown by the trial court to come to  

the conclusion that the statements are not trustworthy,  

was that PW­1, complainant nowhere mentioned in the  

complaint that demand of  Rs.1,50,000/­  in cash  and 800  

gms. of gold as dowry was made as pre­condition to marry  

Meena Kumari.  Such allegations were also not made before  

the Tahsildar (PW.21), as evident from the observation of  

the trial court:

“12.....It is an undisputed fact that  nowhere in the complaint Ex.P3, it is  mentioned that the accused persons demanded  Rs.1.5 lacks and 800 grams of gold as dowry  as a pre­condition to marry the deceased  Meenakumari. In the second para of the  complaint, Ex.P.3, it is mentioned that the  marriage was done as per their request and  that to their satisfaction. At the time of  marriage, they gave 500 grams of gold

Page 7

7

ornaments and Rs.50,000/­ cash and  household articles, further, nowhere in the  complaint Ex.P.3 any mentioned is made with  regard to the payment of Rs.10,000/­ during  1991 to the first accused and subsequent  payment of Rs.25,000/­ to the first accused  in the house of PW. at Mysore........ Now I  will see the cross­examination of PW.21,  the Tahsildar. He states that PW.1 has not  stated before him that the accused persons  demanded 800 grams of gold and Rs.1.50  lacks of as dowry. Likewise, PW.1 has not  stated before him that the first accused  and his family members participated in the  marriage talks. He admits that PW.10 stated  before him vide Ex.D.2. He admits that PW.1  has not stated before him that the third  accused sent deceased Meenakumari to bring  the balance of Rs.1.00 lack and 300 grams  of gold. Likewise PW.1 has not stated  before him that he gave Rs.10,000/­ to  accused Nos.1 and 3 and sent deceased  Meenakumari. He also admits that PW.1 has  not stated before him that PW.1 went to  Devgarh and requested accused No.3 to send  Meenakumari with him for which he refused.  He also states that PW.1 has not stated  before him that he sent his brother  Sampathlal to bring Meenakumari and that he  brought her to his house at Mysore in June,  1991. Likewise, he has also not stated that  the first accused did not take back  Meenakumari to his house and therefore she  stayed in her house for about 2 ½ months,  PW.1 has not stated before PW.21 that  Meenakumari was telling before him that she  was insulted by her in­laws for having not  taken the dowry articles. It is also  admitted by PW.21 Tahsildar that PW.1 has  not stated before him during November,  1991, accused Nos.1 and 2 and one  Sampathlal came to his house and his father  PW.22 gave Rs.25,000/­ to the first  accused. PW.21 also states that PW.1  Parasmal has not specifically stated phone  that the second accused was ill­treating  her. PW.10 also not stated before PW.21 the

Page 8

8

Tahsildar on 13.01.1992. He sent Mohanlal  to Bangalore to see Meenakumari and that in  turn they told him about the harassment  given to her by the first accused. PW.21  also states that PW.18 A. Suresh Jain has  not stated before him that deceased  Meenakumari came to Mysore six months after  the marriage and stayed in the house of  PW.1 for about 1 ½ months and that she  complained of harassment by her in­laws for  the same of dowry.

13. From the evidence of PW­21 the  Tahsildar it is crystal clear that at no  point of time, either PW­1 or as matter of  fact, this PW­18 never stated that the  accused persons made a demand for Rs.1.5  lakhs and 800 grams of gold as dowry.  Likewise, whatever PW­1 states in the chief  examination are all omissions which were not  stated before PW­21 the Tahsildar  immediately after this incident. Absolutely  there is no substance in PWs­1 and 12  telling that they paid Rs.10,000/­ at Benali  and Rs.25,000/­ in the house of PW­1 at  Mysore to the first accused”

7. The High Court relied substantially on the submission  

made by the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the  

prosecution who stated that there are abundant material  

placed on the record by the prosecution including  

depositions of PWs­1,10 to 16 and 21, many of whom spoke  

about the demand of dowry, payment of dowry and dowry  

harassment. It was contended that the learned Sessions  

Judge because of minor discrepancies in the statements of  

the prosecution witnesses has given the benefit of doubt

Page 9

9

in acquitting all the accused. The Sessions Judge had not  

considered the provisions of Sections 113­A and 113­B of  

the Evidence Act to be drawn against the accused. In view  

of such argument, the Appellate Court re­appreciated the  

evidence and observed as follows:

“8.Though it is submitted by the learned  Addl.SPP that there is abundant material  regarding demand for dowry and payment of  dowry for the settlement of marriage, on  perusal of the depositions of  PWs.1,10,11,12,13,15 and 18, we are unable  to agree with his view. It is an admitted  fact that an amount of Rs.50,000/­ and gold  ornaments weighing about 500 gms were given  at the time of marriage. The evidence is  not sufficient to raise a presumption that  this payment of money as dowry was on  demand by the accused nos.1 and 3 to 5. As  rightly observed by the learned Sessions  Judge, they appear to be customary presents  given from the bride's side.”

Again on re­appreciation of evidence of  

PWs.1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 21, the Appellate Court  

while holding that it was unable to find the allegations  

involve accused Nos.2 to 5 observed as follows:

“9.........It is not the case of the  prosecution that from those distant places  the accused Nos.3 to 5 tutored accused No.1  to demand dowry or ill­treat Meena Kumari.  Therefore, we do not find sufficient ground  to interfere in the conclusion of the  learned Sessions Judge with regard to the

Page 10

10

demand for dowry payment of dowry and dowry  harassment so far as the allegations relate  to accused Nos.3 to 5.”

8. So far as accused No.2 is concerned she being a  

neighbour's wife the trial court held that she cannot be  

held responsible for any demand of dowry or dowry  

harassment. The trial court acquitted all the accused No.1  

to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 3,4 and 6 of  

the Dowry Prohibition Act and accused Nos.2 to 5 for an  

offence punishable under Section 498­A of the IPC with the  

following observation:

“10.....Of course, a suggestion has been  made that as informed by Meena Kumari, there  was illicit relationship between the accused  nos.1 and 2. But this has not been  substantiated by any material. Merely  because some witness says that they learned  from Meena Kumari that there was illicit  relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 and  of that it was the cause for marital discord  between accused nos.1 and Meena Kumari, that  cannot be accepted. Considering all these  materials, we hold that the acquittal of  accused nos. 1 to 5 for offences punishable  under Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry  Prohibition Act and accused nos.2 to 5 for  an offences punishable under Sections 498­A  of the IPC does not need interference.”

Page 11

11

9. In spite of such finding referring to the statements  

made by PWs.1,10 to 16 and 21 the Appellate Court held  

that accused No.1­appellant herein is liable to be  

convicted for the offences for dowry harassment and dowry  

death and made the following observations:

“The  learned  Sessions  Judge  lost  sight of  the presumption that is available in  Sections 113­A and 113­B of the Evidence Act  and ignoring the evidence of PWs.1, 10 to 16  and 21, held that there was no dowry  harassment, so far as the allegation relates  to the accused no.1. We find absolutely no  reason to discard the evidence of these  witnesses so far as the allegations relate  to the accused no.1 and consequently he is  liable to be convicted for the offences  under Sections 498­A, 304­B of the IPC.  Since  the  dowry harassment  by  the  accused  nos.2 to 5 has not been proved, the  acquittal granted to them does not need any  interference.”

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if  

one view has been taken by the trial court which is not  

perverse, it was not open to the Appellate Court to  

substitute such view to re­appreciate the evidence for  

coming to a different conclusion.  

11. Per contra, according to the learned counsel for the  

State, the High Court was right in reversing the judgment

Page 12

12

of acquittal passed by the trial court in view of  

sufficient evidence of PWs.10 to 16 and 21 recorded to  

show that the appellant has subjected deceased to  

harassment due to which she was compelled to commit  

suicide.  

12. This Court in the case of  Rohtash vs. State of  

Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589,  held that only in exceptional  

cases where there are compelling circumstances and where  

the  judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the High  

Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. In the  

said case the following observation was made by this  

Court:

“27. The High Court interfered with the  order of acquittal recorded by the trial  court. The law of interfering with the  judgment of acquittal is well settled.  It is to the effect that only in  exceptional cases where there are  compelling circumstances and the  judgment in appeal is found to be  perverse,  the appellate court can  interfere with the order of the  acquittal. The appellate court should  bear in mind the presumption of  innocence of the accused and further  that the trial court’s acquittal  bolsters the presumption of innocence.  Interference in a routine manner where  the other view is possible should be

Page 13

13

avoided, unless there are good reasons  for interference.”  

13. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution  

witnesses PWs.1, 10 to 16 and 21 relied on by the  

prosecution. We find that there are contradictory  

statements which cannot be stated to be a minor  

contradiction as was suggested by the learned Addl.SSP  

before the Appellate Court. The improvement in the  

statements of PW.1 and 12 is clear.  The allegation about  

the demand of dowry of Rs.1,50,000/­ and 800 gms. of gold  

ornaments and harassment and torture made by accused No.1  

on deceased was not disclosed and  mentioned in the First  

Information Report or before the Tahsildar(PW.21) who  

recorded the initial evidence. In Ex.P.2 and complaint  

Ex.P.3 absolutely there is no evidence to show   that  

Rs.25,  000/­  was demanded and Rs.10,000/­ was given to  

accused No.1 either at Benali   or at Mysore. Further,  

payment of Rs.50,000/­ and 500 gms. of gold to accused  

No.1 as dowry was also not established beyond reasonable  

doubt.

Page 14

14

14. Once the prosecution failed to prove the basic  

ingredients of harassment or demand of dowry and the  

evidence brought on record were doubted by the trial  

court, it was not open to the High Court to convict  

accused No.1 on presumption referring to Section 113­A or  

113­B of the Evidence Act.   The presumption of innocence  

of the accused being primary factor, in absence of  

exceptional compelling circumstances and perversity of the  

judgment, it was not open to the High Court to interfere  

with the judgment of the trial court in a routine manner.

15. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned  

judgment dated 4th January, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1042  

of 1999 passed by the High Court, allow the appeal by  

restoring the judgment dated 2nd August, 1999 of the trial  

court. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand  

discharged.

…………………......…………………………….J.      (A.K. PATNAIK)

.......……………………………………………….J.              (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 3, 2013.