http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

PETITIONER:

STATE OF U.P.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/01/1992

BENCH:

AHMADI, A.M. (J)

BENCH:

AHMADI, A.M. (J)

RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:

1992 AIR 840 1992 SCR (1) 37

1992 SCC (2) 86 JT 1992 (1) 340

1992 SCALE (1)149

ACT:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302 and 34

(Occurrence prior to insertion of Section 304-B).

Dowry death-accused-Husband, his father and sister-

Conviction by Trial Court-Re-evaluation and Re-appreciation

of evidence by the High Court-Reversal of conviction order

and acquittal of accused by High Court-Held High Court's

order resulted in miscarriage of justice and is liable to be

set aside.

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136-Scope of

Murder-Covinction by Trial Court-On appeal acquittal by

High Court-Appeal against acquittal order-Power of Supreme

Court to appreciate evidence and interfere with acquittal

order-Held Supreme Court can interfere with acquittal order

if High Court's order has resulted in miscarriage of

justice.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 3.

Circumstantial evidence-Appreciation and evaluation of-

Court must adopt a cautious approach-Conviction should be

recorded only if all the links in the chain of evidence

fully establish the hypothesis of guilt of the accused-But

prosecution is not bound to meet any and every hypothesis

put forward by accused however far-fetched and fanciful it

might be.

HEADNOTE:

Respondent, A was married to M, daughter of PW2, at

Banaras on 13th May, 1973. Subsequent to their marriage A,

who was serving as Assistant Engineer, was transferred to

Lucknow where he hired a two room first floor apartment for

his residence. The ground floor of the house was occupied by

the sons of the landlord, PWs 1 and 4. It was alleged that

A, his father and sister were not satisfied with the

sufficiency of the dowry and therefore all the three were

taunting, tormenting and torturing M. During one of their

visits to Banaras the question of dowry was once again

raised when A'S father and sister misbehaved with M

38

and her father and stated that they won't allow M to live

with A unless dowry was made good. When there was a heated

argument, A returned to Lucknow without M. M entreated her

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

father-in law to permit her to join A at Lucknow but the

latter refused saying that she will have to rot at Banaras

alone unless the dowry amount was made good. Ignoring her

father-in law's refusal M went to Lucknow to join her

husband. On coming to know that M had gone to Lucknow A's

father and sister followed her to Lucknow and all the three

quarrelled and beat M. On that very night they sprinkled

kerosene on M and set her ablaze. Thereafter, all the three

accused came out of the room shouting `fire-fire'. On

hearing the shouts PWs 1 and 4 came out of their house and

saw that while M was in flames all the three accused were

standing in the verandah talking to each other and were

unconcerned about her plight. None of accused made any

effort to extinguish the flames or to rescue her. PW 1

called the fire brigade and PW 3, a fireman, took M to the

hospital where she was declared dead. On coming to know of

the incident, PW 2, father lodged the FIR and all the three

accused were prosecuted for murder.

Relying upon the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 and other

circumstances of the case the Trial Court came to the

conclusion that the charge against all the three accused was

made out by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly the Trial Court convicted them under sections

302/34 and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life.

The Trial Court also rejected the theory of accidental death

of M.

The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court

which on re-evaluation and re-appreciation of the evidence

agreed with the Trial Court that the presence of PWs 1 and 4

on the scene of occurrence was probable and natural but

suspected the trustworthiness of their evidence.

Accordingly, it allowed the appeal and set aside the

conviction order by holding that the evidence did not

disclose the involvement of the accused and that in all

probability the deceased M committed suicide.

The state preferred an appeal before this Court

challenging the High Court's decision.

Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD : 1. While appreciating circumstantial evidence

the court must adopt a very cautious approach and should

record a conviction only if all the links in the chain are

complete pointing to the guilt of the

39

accused and every hypothesis of innocence is capable of

being negatived on evidence. Great care must be taken in

evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence

relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one

in favour of the accused must be accepted. The circumstance

relied upon must be found to have been fully established and

the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must

be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. But this

is not to say that the prosecution must meet any and every

hypothesis put forward by the accused however far-fetched

and fanciful it might be. Not does it mean that prosecution

evidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt because the

law permits rejection if the doubt is reasonable and not

otherwise. [46D-E]

2. The presumption of innocence of the accused is

strengthened, certainly not weakened, by their acquittal and

ordinarily this Court is slow to interfere with an order of

acquittal in exercise of its extraordinary powers under

Article 136 of the Constitution, but in the instant case the

approach of the High court has resulted in gross miscarriage

of justice. Therefore it is not possible for this Court to

refuse to interfere when a gruesome crime is committed which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

has resulted in the extinction of a young mother to be. [46-

F, 48-D]

3. The approach of the High Court was wholly against

the weight of evidence. Since PWs 1 and 4 were occupying

the ground floor of the building of which A and M were

occupying the first floor their presence at the time of

occurrence cannot be doubted. They had no reason to falsely

implicate the accused persons and have disclosed vital facts

such as the arrival of accused-husband's father and sister

hot on the heels of the return of deceased M from Banaras,

quarrels and beating which had taken place in the past and

immediately before the incident between the accused persons

on the one hand and the deceased M on the other, and all the

three accused having come out shouting `fire fire' when the

deceased was afire and none of the accused having gone to

her rescue. The conduct of the three accused persons in not

trying to save deceased M and in showing total indifference

to her fate speaks volumes of their culpability. [48-C, 44-

B, 47-C, 44-G-H, 46-A]

3.1 All the circumstances of the case when taken

together leave no room for doubt that the three accused

persons were the joint authors of the crime. Accordingly the

order of acquittal passed by the High Court is set aside and

the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial

Court is restored. [48-C, E]

40

JUDGMENT:

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.

464 of 1979.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.1978 of the

Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 1976.

Shiv Pujan Singh and A.S. Pundir for the Appellants.

R.K. Garg and Anil K. Gupta for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

AHMADI, J. Meera Srivastava, a young woman aged about

25 years. died of burns on the night between 20th and 21st

July, 1974 at about 2.30 a.m. in the two room apartment of

her husband Ashok Kumar Srivastava, original accused No. 1.

The marriage had taken place less than a year ago on 13th

May, 1973 at Banaras. Both the family of the deceased and

the family of the husband hail from Banaras but after their

wedding Ashok who was serving as an Assistant Engineer was

transferred to Lucknow where he had hired a two room first

floor apartment for his residence. The ground floor was

occupied by the landlord. The first Information Report was

lodged by PW 2 J.P. Shrivastava, father of the unfortunate

woman, after he rushed by taxi to Lucknow on learning about

the incident. The offence of murder was registered and in

the course of investigation statements of PW 1 Prabhat Kumar

and PW 4 Rajendra Prasad, both brothers residing on the

ground floor came to be recorded. Statements of other

witnesses including PW 3 Ram Raj Mishra, a fire brigade man,

and PW 5 S.K. Srivastava, brother of the deceased, were also

recorded. On a consideration of the evidence of PWs 1 to 5

as well as the evidence of PW 9 Dr R.K. Aggarwal, the Trial

Court, bearing in mind other circumstances pointed out in

the judgment, came to the conclusion that the charge against

the three accused was brought home by the prosecution beyond

reasonable doubt. On that conclusion the Trial Court

convicted all the three accused persons under Section

302/34, I.P.C., and sentenced each of them to imprisonment

for life. Feeling aggrieved by this order of conviction and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Lucknow, the three accused persons preferred an appeal,

being Criminal Appeal No. 913/1976, to the High Court, That

appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court which

on a re-evaluation and reappreciation of the prosecution

evidence came to the conclusion that in all probability the

deceased Meera committed suicide and the evidence did not

disclose the involvement of the appellants/accused in the

commission of the crime. In that view that the High Court

took, the High Court allowed the

41

appeal, set aside the order of conviction and order and

sentence passed by the Trial Court and acquitted all the

three appellants/accused. The State of U.P., not satisfied

by the judgment rendered by the High Court approached this

Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. This Court

granted Special Leave to Appeal and that is how the present

appeal is before us. In order to understand the prosecution

case we may now state the facts in brief.

Meera and Ashok, both residents of Banaras, were married

on 13th May, 1973 at Banaras. On Ashok being transferred to

Lucknow, they occupied a two room apartment of house number

557/17K. Ashok and his wife were occupying the first floor

whereas PW 1 and PW 4, the two sons of Kedar Singh to whom

the house belonged, occupied the ground floor. The

prosecution case is that at the time of and immediately

after the marriage there was some bickering in regard to the

quantum of dowry paid by the bride's father. The allegation

is that the father and sister of Ashok were not satisfied

with the dowry or expenditure incurred on gifts by the

father of the deceased Meera. They were of the view that

what was paid in cash as well as by way of gifts at the time

of `Tilak' was short by about Rs. 4,000. On account of this

feeling the three accused were taunting the deceased and

when she tried to defend her father she was tormented and

tortured by the accused persons. On 13th July, 1974 both

ashok and Meera had gone to Banaras. While they were there

this question of dowry once again raised its head and it is

alleged that even on that occasion the father and sister of

Ashok misbehaved with Meera and her father and stated that

they would not allow Meera to live with Ashok unless Rs.

4,000 were paid towards dowry. It appears that after this

exchange of heated words Ashok left for Lucknow on 18th

July, 1974 leaving Meera behind. Meera was naturally

perturbed. She wanted to follow him but her father-in-law

did not permit her. She then went to the house of her

friend Madhu and from there called her brother PW 5 Sushil

Kumar Srivastava and told him she desired to go to Lucknow

as she wanted to find out the attitude of her husband.

Despite PW 5 advising her not to go to Lucknow in view of

the threats administered by the father and sister of Ashok,

she went to Lucknow on 20th July, 1974 to the house of her

husband. PW 5 left her there and returned to Banaras by the

2.00 p.m. by Punjab Mail. On learning about Meera's visit

to Lucknow the father and sister of Ashok also went to

Lucknow. The prosecution case is that after they reached

Lucknow all the three quarrelled and beat Meera during the

day and in the dead of night at about 2.30 or 2.45 a.m.,

they sprinkled kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The

house was occupied by Ashok, his father Rajendra Lal and his

sister Sudha when the incident occurred. According to the

prosecution at the dead of night these three persons came

out of the room shouting `fire-fire' and stood in the front

verandah of the house while Meera

42

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

was still in flames. No effort whatsoever was made by any

of them to extinguish the flames or to rescue her. PW 1 and

PW 4 on hearing the shouts came out of their house. PW 1

ran up to see what had happened. He was shocked to find

that Meera was in flames and the three accused persons were

standing in the verandah talking to each other unconcerned

about the plight of the woman. PW 1 thereafter ran to the

nearby fire brigade station and informed the staff there

about the incident. PW 4 had followed p. W. 1 upstairs. He

saw the incident from place where he was not visible to

the accused persons. He saw the accused carry Meera to the

next room and after a while brought her back with the tongue

protruding out. PW 1 returned with the fire-brigade men.

The fireman, PW 3 Ram Raj Mishra, carried Meera on a

stretcher to the van and then to the Civil Hospital Hazzat

Ganj but the Medical Officer there could not admit her for

want of a vacant bed. She was therefore sent to Balrampur

hospital where the doctor declared her dead. This, in

brief, is the prosecution version regarding the actual

incident.

The father of the girl was informed about the incident

and as no train was immediately available, he hired a taxi

and came to Lucknow. He went straight to the place of

occurrence. Since he was a stranger he talked to certain

persons, including PW 1, and thereafter lodged his First

Information Report, Ka-I, at about 7.00 p. m. at Alam Bagh

Police Station, Lucknow. Prior thereto it may be mentioned

that PW 3 Ram Raj Mishra had taken the three accused persons

to the hospital and after they were free from there Ashok's

father went to the police station at about 6.15 p.m. to

lodge a report about his daughter-in-law's death due to

burns.This is how the report Exh. Kha-I and the F.I.R. Exh

Ka-I came to be recorded.

The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW 1

to PW 5 and PW 9 DR. Aggarwal who undertook the post mortem

examination to bring home the guilt against the three

accused. On the basis of their evidence and the 21

circumstances enumerated by the learned Trial Judge, a

conviction under Section 302/34, I.P.C. was recorded.

The Trial Court came to the conclusion that having

regard to the time at which the incident occurred the

presence of PW 1 and PW 4 at the place of occurrence is not

only probable but also natural. He did not doubt their

testimony when they deposed that they saw the three accused

persons standing in the verandah chit-chatting with each

other totally indifferent to the plight of Meera who was an

fire. It also accepted the testimony of PW 4 that when

Meera was dragged to the smaller room her tongue was inside

the mouth, but when she was brought back, her tongue was

protruding out, thereby suggesting that the three accused

persons made sure her life was

43

extinct by strangulating her. This inference is

corroborated by medical evidence. It also found that the

evidence of PW 3 corroborated the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 to

some extent. It held that the F.I.R. was lodged without

delay and since PW 2 was a total stranger, the absence of

names of witnesses cannot weaken it. The motive for the

crime was dowry. This fact was found proved from the

evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5. The fact that Meera was

carrying twins in her womb since six months is proved beyond

doubt. The theory of accidental death had to be brushed

aside in view of the presence of kerosene on the scalp of

the deceased. Of the two remaining possibilities, the Trial

Court came to the conclusion that the evidence placed on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

record proved beyond doubt that death was homicidal as (i)

her tongue was protruding out (ii) there was presence of

kerosene and (iii) her stomach was empty. In this view of

the evidence, the learned Trial Judge relying on the

evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 and the 21 circumstances set out

in the judgment came to the conclusion that the cumulative

effect of the evidence led one to the only conclusion that

the accused persons had done Meera to death. Particular

emphasis was laid on the unnatural conduct of the three

accused persons. The fact that accused Rajinder and Sudha

followed Meera to Lucknow and yet they tried to tell a lie

on this point betrayed a guilty conscience. The absence of

an `angithi' in the kitchen, the protruding of the tongue

and the absconding of the accused immediately after the

incident supplied links to the prosecution version regarding

the incident. On the basis of this evidence, the learned

trial Judge convicted all the three accused persons of

murder with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C.

On appeal, the High Court while agreeing with the Trial

Court that the presence of PWs 1 and 4 was both probable and

natural doubted their testimony firstly on the ground that

their names did not figure in the F.I.R. filed by Meera's

father even though they had spoken to him about the incident

before he lodged the F.I.R. The High Court observes that

this meant that both the witnesses did not disclose anything

incriminating the accused persons, for otherwise such facts

would have found a mention in the F.I.R. On the basis of

this inference drawn by the High Court on account of the

absence of their names in the F.I.R. the High Court came to

the conclusion that PWs 1 and 4 had falsely implicated the

accused persons at the behest of Meera's father and his

acquaintances and hence their evidence was not beyond

suspicion. The High Court points out the PW 1 hailed from

Qadirabad of Banaras District which village was adjacent to

village Ghauspur where the complainant's niece was married

to one Bansidhar who happened to be a friend of the family

of PWs 1 and 4. One Inspector, Vijay Pratap Singh, posted

at Lucknow was a `pattidar' of that family and through him

Meera's father had approached the investigating Officer who

in turn succeeded in

44

persuading PWs 1 and 4 testify against the accused persons.

Once the High Court suspected the trustworthiness of PWs 1

and 4 it brushed aside the various circumstances pointed out

in the judgment of the Trial Court and acquitted the accused

persons. The question is whether this approach of the High

Court can be sustained?

As pointed out earlier since PWs 1 and 4 were occupying

the ground floor of the building of which Ashok and his wife

were occupying the first floor, their presence at the time

of occurrence cannot be doubted. Nor have the accused

denied their presence in their statements. Even according

to the theory put up the defence the accused persons had

come out shouting `fire-fire and, therefore, it is not

surprising that PWs 1 and 4 woke up from their sleep. PW 1

immediately rushed to the first floor to find out what had

happened. PW 4 followed him and placed himself at a point

from where he was not visible to the accused persons. Both

these witnesses have deposed that after Ashok and Meera came

to occupy the first floor there used to be frequent quarrels

between them on the question of insufficiency of dowry. Both

of them have deposed that the accused used to beat her and

she used to confide in their sister. They also deposed that

the father and sister of Ashok had come to Lucknow from

Banaras after Meera's brother, PW 5, had left her at Lucknow

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

and returned to Banaras. The evidence of PWs 2 and 5, the

father and brother of Meera, shows that before Meera

returned to Lucknow there were quarrels between the accused

persons on the one side and she and her family members on

the other regarding insufficiency of dowry. It was after

heated exchanges on this account that Ashok left for Lucknow

on 18th July, 1974. Meera entreated her father-in-law to

allow her to go to Lucknow but the latter refused and stated

that she would have to rot at Banaras unless the dowry was

made good. Meera, therefore, went to the residence of her

friend Madhu, and from there she sent for her brother PW 5.

When her father-in-law returned to the house and found her

missing he was annoyed and went to the house of her father

and quarreled with him. Immediately thereafter he and Sudha

left for Lucknow and during the day beat and quarreled with

Meera. Her husband too joined them. The absence of food

matter in the stomach and small intestines of Meera shows

that she did not take her dinner before she went to bed.

Ultimately between 2.30 and 2.45 a.m. the unfortunate

incident took place. PWs 1 and 4, therefore, disclose three

vital facts, namely, (i) the arrival of the Ashok's father

and sister hot on the heels of the return of Meera from

Banaras, (ii) quarrels and beating took place in the past

and immediately before the incident between the accused

persons on the one hand and Meera on the other, and (iii)

all the three accused came out shouting `fire-fire' when

Meera was afire at about 2.30 or 2.45 a.m. and none went to

her rescue. Counsel for the defence

45

submitted that Meera had a flicker of hope that her

husband's attitude would be different from that of her

father-in-law and sister-in-law but when she found that he

too shared their views she was frustrated and when every one

was fast asleep she poured kerosene on herself and committed

suicide. This suggestion would have found favour with us

had the conduct of the accused persons been consistent

therewith. The evidence of PWs 1 and 4 clearly shows that

after the accused persons came to reside in their house

there were frequent quarrels with Meera and she was being

beaten by all the three. Even on the evening of the fateful

day she was beaten and kicked by her husband and the other

two as she was not wanted at Lucknow. On the night of the

incident all the three accused persons came out of the house

shouting `fire-fire' and stood in the verandah unconcerned

about Meera'a fate. They were seen chit-chatting in a

casual manner, by both the witnesses. Besides it must be

noticed that none of the three accused had any burn marks to

suggest that they had tried to go to the rescue of Meera.

Since the body of Meera was lying in between the two rooms,

the possibility of Meera having Bolted one room from inside

must be ruled out. Search of the three accused was on and

accused Rajinder Lal and Sudha could be apprehended on the

23rd but accused Ashok was absconding and presented himself

as late as 5th September, 1974 armed with an anticipatory

bail order. He was clearly absconding and his explanation

that he had gone to Allahabad to fetch his pay slip must be

stated to be rejected. One does not absent oneself from

duty for more than one and a half months to fetch a pay

slip. A lame and false explanation of this type only adds a

link in the prosecution chain of events. Similarly the

false explanation of the other two accused that they had not

followed Meera but had come a day before her arrival to see

an ailing relative shows their anxiety to avoid the

situation of having followed her for obvious reasons. No

match box was found on the floor but it was found securely

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

placed on the upper 6 feet high slab. Then the statement of

accused Rajendra Lal to the police, kha-1, that Meera was

taking her meals at 10.00 p.m. when he retired is falsified

by the absence of food material in her stomach and small

intestines. These are added circumstances on which the

prosecution has justifiably relied.

Much was tried to be made of the fact that it was the

accused who gave the alarm of fire and informed the police

also which goes to show that they did not have a guilty

conscience. This submission, however, overlooks the fact

that the apartment was a small two room apartment and with

smoke billowing from the clothes and the body of Meera they

were virtually forced out of the small room occupied by

them. it is, therefore, not surprising that they flung open

the door to the verandah and ran out for fresh air shouting

`fire-fire'. It was impossible to keep that information from

the neighbours.

46

The intimation to the police was also to save their

skin as they would have known anyhow since PW 3 had reached

the place of occurrence. Therefore, the conduct of the

three accused persons in not trying to save Meera and in

showing total indifference to her fate which speaks volumes

of their culpability cannot be explained away by the above

facts. We, are, therefore, not impressed by the two

submissions made by counsel for the accused persons. On the

other hand, we find that in the background of facts deposed

to by PWs 1 and 4 and their subsequent total indifference

regarding the Meera's fate certainly betrays a guilty

conscience as observed by the Trial Court. So also we find

it difficult to accept the contention that the accused being

highly educated (so was Meera) would not commit such a

gruesome crime. It is unfortunate that the greed for dowry

has been more acute in well to do and educated families

since it is only people in affluent circumstances who can

meet it. We cannot countenance such a submission although

that found favour with the High Court.

This Court has, time out of number, observed that while

appreciating circumstantial evidence the Court must adopt a

very cautious approach and should record a conviction only

if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the

guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is

capable of being negatived on evidence. Great care must be

taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the

evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences,

the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The

circumstance relied upon must be found to have been fully

established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so

established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of

guilt. But this is not to say that the prosecution must

meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused

however farfetched and fanciful it might be. Nor does it

mean that prosecution evidence must be rejected on the

slightest doubt bacause the law permits rejection if the

doubt is reasonable and not otherwise. We are also

conscious of the fact that the presumption of innocence is

strengthened, certainly not weakened, by their acquittal by

the High Court and ordinarily this Court is slow to

interfere with an order of acquittal in exercise of its

extraordinary powers under Section 136 of the Constitution.

However, in the present case the facts found proved as

discussed earlier are (i) the accused were unhappy about the

cash and articles given by way of dowry at the time of the

`tilak' ceremony (ii) the accused taunted, tormented and

tortured Meera for the insufficiency of the dowry amount

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

(iii)a few days before the incident while at Banaras there

was a heated argument and then Ashok returned to Lucknow

without Meera (iv) Meera entreated her father-in-law to

permit her to join Ashok but the latter refused saying she

will have to rot at Banaras alone unless the dowry amount

was made good (v) ignoring her father-in-law's refusal Meera

went

47

to Lucknow (vi) the two accused Rajendra Lal and Sudha

followed her to Lucknow (vii) while at Lucknow all the three

illtreated her (viii) Meera was found on fire at about 2.30

or 2.45 a.m. (ix) while she was burning the three accused

who alone were inside came out of the room and stood in the

verandah chit-chatting unconcerned about her plight (x) none

of them tried to help Meera (xi) soon after that the house

was locked and the accused could not be found (xii) while

the two accused were apprehended on the 23rd Ashok could not

be traced till he surrendered on 5th September, 1974, and

(xiii) false explanation or statements were made to explain

away their conduct.

PWs 1 and 4 had no reason to falsely implicate the

accused persons. The suggestion that they had implicated

them at the behest of Inspector, Vijay Pratap Singh, is too

far-fetched to be accepted. Even according to the evidence

of PW 2, the father of Meera, he did not know them prior to

the incident. This unfortunate father came to the scene of

occurrence after he was informed about the death of his

young daughter. He naturally went to the place of

occurrence, contacted the people there and talked to PWs 1

and 4. He went back and lodged a complaint, Ext. Ka-1, in

which he did mention the presence of the house owner though

he did not name them this is quite natural because he had

not enquired of their names having regard to the strain,

stress and tension in which he was at the relevant point of

time. We are afraid the High Court was not justified in

coming to the conclusion that they had been set up at the

behest of Inspector Vijay Pratap Singh who was their

pattidar. We see no reason to disbelieve any part of the

version given by PWs 1 and 4 except to say that perhaps the

evidence of PW 4 that Meera's tongue was not protruding when

she was removed to the smaller room and the same was found

protruding when she brought back may be an exaggeration

based on medical testimony. We, therefore, find it

difficult to agree with the High Court that these two

witnesses have been falsely set up at the instance of

Inspector Vijay Pratap Singh to give false evidence against

the accused persons. So far as the complainant and his son

are concerned they have not tried to exaggerate or introduce

false material to support the prosecution case. Their

testimony regarding the quarrels which took place on account

of insufficiency of dowry stands corroborated by the

evidence of PWs 1 and 4 and can be accepted without

hesitation.

The evidence of PWs 1 and 4 is partly corroborated by

PW 3. Immediately after the fire was noticed and the smoke

was seen billowing out, PW 1 ran to the nearby fire station

and called the fire brigade. P.W. 3 arrived at the scene of

occurrence and he too saw the three accused persons standing

in the verandah totally indifferent to what was happening to

Meera. He took

48

the victim Meera on a stretcher to the Hospital. Counsel

for the defence tried to contend that the fact that the

accused went to the hospital along with her is consistent

with their innocence. We are afraid we cannot accept this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

submission for the simple reason that they had no

alternative but to go along with the fireman since they were

asked to do so. It was thereafter that Ashok's father

lodged the report Ext. Kha-1. After the F.I.R. was lodged

by Meera's father foul play was suspected but by then the

accused had left. The investigation ultimately led to the

arrest of the two accused other than Ashok on the 23rd.

Ashok was still untraced and no valid explanation is to be

found for his absence. He secured anticipatory bail and

thereafter surrendered on 5th September, 1974. It would,

therefore, appear that he had made himself scarce for over

one and a half months. This is a circumstance which betrays

guilty conscience. In addition thereto, a number of

circumstances have been pointed out by the Trial Judge which

taken together leave no room for doubt that the three

accused persons were the joint authors of the crime. We

have no hesitation, whatsoever, in concluding that the

approach of the High Court was wholly against the weight of

evidence and it is impossible to approve the same.

ordinarily, in an acquittal this Court is slow to

interfere while exercising power under Article 136 of the

Constitution but here we find that the approach of the High

Court has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. It is

not possible for this Court to refuse to interfere when a

gruesome crime is committed which has reassured in the

extinction of a young mother to be.

In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the

order of acquittal passed by the High Court and restore the

order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court. The

accused will surrender to their bail forthwith.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

49