Arulvelu Vs. State represented by the Public Prosecutor
|
Head Note
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 304-B
Acquittal in dowry death - Suicide by bride after 6 years of marriage - Deceased stated in suicide note that no body was responsible - This is indeed a very significant and vital factor - Trial Court believed the version of accused (husband) that deceased committed suicide as he was not allowing his wife to visit her parents house as he suspected character of her mother-in-law - Trial Court acquitted the accused inter alia on this ground - Acquittal upheld by Supreme Court.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 304-B
Dowry death - FIR containing not all details - Conviction cannot set aside - This fact not mentioned in FIR - High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that FIR cannot be encyclopedia to contain all history of case - Held, approach of High Court was not correct - FIR should at least mention a broad story of the prosecution and not mentioning of material and vital facts may affect the credibility of the FIR.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378
Appeal against acquittal - If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. (2008) 10 SCC 450 relied. 6. An order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the Court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused. 2009(11) SCALE 699 relied. 7. The trial court judgment cannot be set aside because the appellate Court's view is more probable - The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshaling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378
Appeal before Supreme Court against the order of acquittal - In the following circumstances Supreme Court would be justified in interfering with judgment of acquittal - i) The High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position; ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record; iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice; iv) The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case; v) This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court; vi) Supreme Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal. 2009(4) SCC 271 relied.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378
Expression 'perverse' means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 2001(1) SCC 501 relied. 2. 'Perverse finding' means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. AIR 1966 Calcutta 31 approved. 3. Any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. AIR 1977 Karnataka 58 approved - If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. 1999(1) SCT 303 (SC) relied.
Topic(s)-Dowry Death