Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1517 OF 2008

Pudhu Raja & Anr. …Appellants

Versus

State, Rep. by Inspector of Police …Respondent

O R D E R

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

order dated 21.8.2008, passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Madras in Criminal Appeal No.337 of 2005, by way of which, the

High Court has allowed the State appeal against the judgment and

order dated 22.12.2004 in Sessions Case No.618 of 2003 passed by

the Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1),

Chengalpet, Kachipuram District, by which, the Trial Court had

acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 302 r/w 34,

304(b) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘IPC’).

Page 2 2.The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal as per

prosecution are as follows:

A.Padhu Raja (A-1), son of Smt. Angammal (A-2), got married to

one Jayalakshmi (deceased), on 6.9.1998 at Gudalur. At the time of

marriage the appellant (A-1) demanded 50 Sovereigns of jewels and

Rs.2 lacs in cash, however the parents of the deceased gave 35

sovereigns of jewels and cash to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter,

there were persistent demand for dowry by the appellants from time to

time, particularly on festive occasions. Those demands were even

met. Appellant (A-1) made a demand for a motor bike which was also

met by the parents of the deceased in the presence of several villagers,

including the village Head, namely Bose, (PW.6). However, even

after this, the demands continued. In July 2000, Jayalakshmi came to

her parent’s house and told them that a demand had been made by the

husband for 15 sovereigns of jewels, without fulfilling which, she

must not return.

B.A Panchayat was convened and thereupon, the appellant (A-1),

and Jayalakshmi (deceased), started living separately in a house

belonging to Chandran (PW.2), at 9, C.N. Krishna Street, Bharathi

2

Page 3 Nagar, Perianatham. Karthikeyan (PW.4) and his wife Mrs. Malliga

(PW.3) were living in close proximity to the appellants. Jayalakshmi

had told Mrs. Malliga (PW.3) on certain occasions, that the appellants

had been torturing her.

C.On 17.4.2001, at about 1 A.M., Mrs. Malliga (PW.3), noticed

smoke rising up from the ground floor where the appellants and

deceased were living. She immediately informed Karthikeyan

(PW.4) and then also came out to ascertain the cause for the smoke

alongwith her husband, Karthikeyan (PW.4). Chandran (PW.2) and

his wife also came out of their house. Chandran (PW.2) found the

appellants standing outside the gate. On being asked by Chandran

(PW.2) about the key of the house, as the same was locked from the

outside, the appellant (A-1), replied that the second appellant had

thrown away the key. Chandran (PW.2) went upstairs, brought a

duplicate key and opened the door of their house. Chandran (PW.2)

found the room full of smoke and Jayalakshmi lying dead on the bed,

with burn injuries. The Fire Brigade was informed. Mr. Mahalingam,

Station Officer, Fire Department Chengalpet, (PW.8) arrived at the

spot with his personnel, at 1.45 A.M. and extinguished the fire. Mr.

Ezhamparuthi (PW.1), a close relative of the deceased came to the

3

Page 4 spot upon being informed, and thereafter went to the Police Station

at 8.30 A.M. on 18.4.2001 and made a complaint to Mr. Kotteswaran

(PW.12), on the basis of which, a case in Crime No.157 of 2001 was

registered. The said FIR was handed over to Mr. Durairaj (PW.13),

the Investigating Officer who then took up the investigation.

D.Durairaj (PW.13) recovered the dead body of Jayalakshmi

(deceased), after taking photographs of the place of occurrence and

also of the dead body of the deceased, through the photographer Balaji

(PW.11). Durairaj (PW.13) also recovered all material objects and

prepared the mahazar.

E.As Jayalakshmi had died within 2-1/2 years of her marriage, the

matter was reported to the Sub-Collector, Ms. Pila Rajesh, IAS

(PW.10) who came to the spot and conducted inquest on the dead

body in the presence of witnesses and a panchnama was prepared.

Ms. Pila Rajesh (PW.10) also recorded the statements of the witnesses

after which, the dead body was sent for post-mortem.

F.Prof. Muguesan (PW.9), who is attached to the Govt. Hospital

Chengalpet, conducted the post-mortem and opined that the deceased

had died of smothering and burn injuries.

4

Page 5 G.The case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC and

both the appellants were arrested and sent into judicial remand. After

completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Before the trial

court, both the appellants pleaded not guilty and, therefore, claimed

trial. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 13

witnesses, and relied upon 14 exhibits and 3 material objects. The

defence also examined one witness, and relied upon 4 documents for

the purpose of their defence. The Trial Court after the conclusion of

the trial, upon considering the material on record, and after

appreciating the available evidence, acquitted both the appellants vide

judgment and order dated 22.12.2004.

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

and the High Court vide its impugned judgment and order, convicted

and sentenced both the appellants, thereby reversing the judgment of

the Trial Court, as referred to hereinabove.

Hence, this appeal.

3.Dr. A. Francis Jullian, learned Senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants has submitted that the High Court committed

an error by interfering with the order of acquittal as was recorded by

5

Page 6 the Trial Court. While reversing the judgment of acquittal, the High

Court has not complied with the parameters laid down by this Court in

such matters. This is because there is no direct evidence on any issue,

and the case is one of circumstantial evidence wherein, several links

are missing in the chain of events. The Trial Court recorded acquittal,

as it came to the conclusion that there were a large number of material

inconsistencies that went to the root of the case. There is also

considerable embellishment/improvement in the depositions of the

prosecution witnesses. There was also an inordinate delay after the

incident, in lodging the FIR. The appellant (A-1), had been arrested

immediately, however, such arrest was shown to have taken place at 9

A.M. on 18.4.2001. There could have been absolutely no motive on

the part of the appellants, to commit the murder of the deceased. Thus,

the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

4.Shri Rakesh Sharma with Shri B. Balaji, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, opposed the appeal

contending that, the High Court had most certainly appreciated the

evidence as a whole and dealt with the case in the correct

perspective. The deceased had died in the house where only the

appellants were residing with her. Despite this, they were unable to

6

Page 7 furnish any reasonable explanation with respect to the circumstances

under which Jayalakshmi had died. The conduct of the appellants,

therefore, points only towards their guilt. At the relevant time when

the deceased was burning, both the appellants were found standing

outside their house. The gate was locked from the outside. The

appellants did not even produce the key of the house upon being asked

to do so. It was Mr. Chandran (PW.2), who brought a duplicate key

from his house and opened the door to the said house. The appellants

did not inform the police, or the fire brigade when the deceased was

burning. No attempt was made by either of them, to extinguish the

said fire and they made no efforts to inform the family members of

the deceased. Had the prosecution witnesses not come out after

noticing the smoke coming from the house of the appellants, they

would have walked away scot free, as they had already locked the

house, from the outside. The appellants had further, also been

demanding dowry and harassing the deceased in this context. Thus,

they most definitely had a very strong motive to get rid of the

deceased. The inconsistencies on the basis of which, the trial Court

had accorded acquittal to the appellants, were all trivial in nature and

none of them could be so material, that it could be termed to go to the

7

Page 8 root of the case. The impugned judgment of the High Court,

therefore, does not warrant any interference and thus, the present

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5.We have considered the rival submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.The following injuries were found on the person of the

deceased:

Scratches:

1.An injury on the right side of the upper lip measuring 1 x

0.5 c.m.

2.An injury on the central part of the upper lip measuring 1

x 0.5 c.m. The cells below these injuries were with clots

and there was also swelling.

Clotted injuries:

1.A clotted injury on the centre part of the lower lip and its

surrounding, measuring 2 x 1 x 0.5 c.m.

2.A clotted injury on the right cheek, on the upper part of

the right jaw, measuring 3 x 2 x 0.5 c.m.

8

Page 9 3.A clotted injury on the left cheek, on the upper part of the

left jaw, measuring 2 x 1 x 0.5 c.m.

4.A clotted injury on the central part to the upper part of

the breast, measuring 6 x 5 x 0.5 c.m.

5.A clotted injury on the front side and the outer part of the

left leg 3 c.m. above the left heel, measuring 6 x 4 x 0.5

c.m.

Injuries by fire:

The upper skin, inner skin and two types of fire injuries.

The body skin was burnt and the fat and cells under the skin

appeared to be red and heated. All over the body, including the

upper side of the neck, the lower side of the neck, the upper part

of both hands, palms, both legs in entirety, the back portion of

the breast, the entire front and back portions of the stomach,

and the female organ bore injuries by fire. All these injuries by

fire, were suffered by her while she was alive.

7.The law on the issue of interference with an order of acquittal 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

9

Page 10 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 avoided, unless there are good

reasons for interference.

8.In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must

establish each instance of incriminating circumstance, by way of

reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved, must

form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which, no conclusion

other than one of guilt of the accused can be reached. Undoubtedly,

suspicion, however grave it may be, can never be treated as a

substitute for proof. While dealing with a case of circumstantial

evidence, the court must take utmost precaution whilst finding an

accused guilty, solely on the basis of the circumstances proved before

it.

9.Furthermore, in such a case, motive assumes great significance

and importance, as the absence of motive puts the court on its guard

and causes it to scrutinize each piece of evidence very closely in

order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the

place of proof. The evidence regarding existence of motive which

1

Page 11 operates in the minds of assailants is very often, not known to any

other person. The motive may not even be known, under certain

circumstances, to the victim of the crime. It may be known only to

the accused and to none other. It is therefore, only the perpetrator of

the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him

to adopt a certain course of action, leading to the commission of the

crime.

10. 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

evidence, in order to decide, as to 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. (See : The Transport Commissioner, A.P.,

Hyderabad & Anr. v. S. Sardar Ali & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1225;

1

Page 12 State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471; and Musheer

Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 748).

11.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 again, without providing justifiable reasons for the

same. (Vide: State v. Saravanan, AIR 2009 SC 152).

12. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a

serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other

witness also makes 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

1

Page 13 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 has already recorded, then, in such a case it cannot be held that

the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

13. The present case requires to be examined in light of the aforesaid

settled legal propositions.

The trial Court decided in favour of the accused, and acquitted

them on ground of material contradictions in the deposition of the

eye-witnesses, as Karthikeyan (PW.4) had deposed that he had gone

along with Mr. Chandran (PW.2) to inform the police and also the fire

service station. On the contrary, Mr. Chandran (PW.2), deposed that

at the time of occurrence he did not accompany Karthikeyan (PW.4),

to the police station. According to the deposition of Karthikeyan

(PW.4), regarding the opening of the door of the house of the

deceased, the statements of Mr. Chandran (PW.2), and Karthikeyan

(PW.4), were found to be contrary to the statement of Mr.

Mahalingam (PW.8), Fire Service Officer as he stated that, he reached

the place of occurrence at about 1.45 A.M. and found the house to be

1

Page 14 locked. Mr. Chandran (PW.2), brought the key, opened the door and it

was then that the fire was put out. Mr. Mahalingam (PW.8) has

further deposed that the body of the deceased was on the cot and the

fire had burnt the said cot also. However, the photographs taken by

the police proved to be contrary to the said deposition. The

photograph revealed that the body was lying on the floor while the

cot was lying upside down. The trial court further relied upon the

statement of Devaraj (DW.1) who deposed, that after the said

incident, Kodirasu, father of the deceased Jayalakshmi, had

fraudulently taken away land from the father of the appellant (A-1) by

filing Suit No. 14/2002 in the Civil Court and further that Jayalakshmi

had been in love with one Selvam and further that, her marriage to the

appellant (A-1), was against her wishes and was the reason for her

committing suicide. More so, the trial court doubted the time taken for

recording FIR, and found the explanation furnished for the delay

regarding the same, totally unacceptable. The explanation so

furnished by the prosecution was that, Ezhamparuthi (PW.1), was

informed by the incident and, thereafter, he went to the place of

occurrence and upon seeing the place, he then went to the police

station and lodged the said FIR.

1

Page 15 14.The High Court noted that it is an admitted fact that, at the time

of occurrence of the incident, the appellants were in the said house.

Mr. Chandran (PW-2), saw them both standing outside the house of

the deceased. Appellant (A-2) even tried to explain the situation by

stating that, they were watching TV in an adjoining room and came

out to find fumes coming from the next room, and also further stated

that the deceased had committed suicide.

The High Court did not accept the story of suicide, saying that

the same was not plausible, in the given situation. It stated that as the

appellants were present at the place of occurrence, they should have

been able to give a reasonable answer regarding the manner in which

the deceased died, but failed to do so. Instead, they all attempted to

screen the offence.

15.The trial court did not take note of the fact that there was

sufficient evidence on record, to indicate the possibility and the

likelihood of dowry harassment and death, caused due to failure to

give dowry, as demanded.

1

Page 16 16.The trial court did not consider that, if the deceased had in fact

committed suicide, the natural reaction of the co-accused would not

have been to rush out of the house, after locking her inside, but to

make an attempt to rescue her. Further, when Mr. Chandran (PW-2)

asked for the house key, the same was not provided, stating that the

appellant (A-2) had thrown it away. Mr. Chandran (PW-2), had to

then fetch a duplicate key to enter the house. This is a clear indication

of the fact that the accused were trying to lock up the house and leave.

17.The theory of suicide can further be negated by the fact that the

doctor who conducted the post-mortem, did not mention the

possibility of suicide at all.

18.All the circumstances, therefore, clearly indicate that the

deceased did not die a natural death, nor was she the victim of an

accident and neither did she commit suicide. She was therefore killed

and no one except the accused could have committed the said offence.

19.A delay in the registration of the case would not materially

affect the case of the prosecution in any way, as PW-1 was first

summoned, then he went to the spot of the incident, after which he

1

Page 17 went to the police station. Such a delay was therefore, natural and

acceptable.

20.So far as the discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by

the trial court are concerned, the same are not material and none of

them can be held to go to the root of the case. Further, even if there

has been a transfer of property in favour of Kodirasu, father of

Jayalakshmi, the deceased, from the father of the appellant (A-1), as

the same is a transaction, subsequent to the incident, it can have no

bearing on the case. The trial court unnecessarily gave advantage to

the appellants in this regard, even though the vendor himself was not

examined. Thus, no motive can be attributed to the complainant on

this count. Furthermore, had Jayalakshmi been in love with Selvam,

the same could not have been a ground for her to commit suicide 2 ½

years from the date of her marriage, as she would have in all

likelihood, attempted the said act, either at the time of her marriage, or

immediately thereafter.

21.In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to

interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal

has no merit and is, therefore, accordingly dismissed.

1

Page 18 The appellant no.2 is on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled.

She is directed to surrender within a period of four weeks from today

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In case she does not surrender,

we direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take her into custody and

send her to jail to serve out the remaining sentence.

A copy of the order may be sent to the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Chengalpet, Tamil Nadu, by the Registry of this Court for

compliance.

……..………………………J.

(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

....…..…………………….… .………………………J.

(FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA)

New Delhi,

September 19, 2012

1