Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 570 OF 2003

Govindaraju …. Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. In  this  appeal  which  has  been filed  by  one Govindaraju,  original  

accused No. 1 before the Trial Court (appellant herein), the challenge is  

against  his  conviction for  the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal  

Code (IPC) and the consequent punishment of rigorous imprisonment for  

seven  years.   Initially,  the  appellant/accused  Govindaraju  was  tried  for  

offence under  Section 302 and/or  304B,  IPC along with  his  father  and  

mother,  accused  Nos.  2  and  3  respectively  as  also  his  brother  Vasu,  

accused No.4.  They were tried for the murder of Susheela, the wife of  

Govindaraju  (present  appellant)  which  took place on the night  between  

28/29 Janunay, 1987 in her matrimonial home which was No. CH.27/1, 6th  

Cross, Ashokapuram, Mysore.   

2. Eventually, we are not concerned with accused Nos. 2 and 3 and  

also  the  accused  No.4,  Vasu,  as  the  accused  No.  2  Krishnaiah  and  

1

accused No. 3, Eramma @ Marimadamma died during the pendency of  

the trial and accused No. 4 was acquitted both by Sessions Court and the  

High  Court.   Initially,  both  the  accused  No.1  (for  short  “A-1”)  and  his  

brother accused No. 4 (for short “A-4”) were acquitted by the 1st Additional  

Sessions Judge, Mysore.  However,  in appeal by the State against this  

acquittal, the present appellant Govindaraju was convicted for the offence  

under  Section  304B,  IPC  and  was  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for seven years.  That is how the accused is before us in this  

appeal.

3. The prosecution case was that Susheela was married to the present  

appellant on 25.05.1986.  The original accused Nos. 2 and 3 were parents  

of the present appellant, while A-4, with whom we are not concerned, was  

his brother.  Susheela died due to burn injuries in her matrimonial home on  

the  night  of  28/29  January,  1987.   She  had  no  father.   Hence,  her  

matrimonial  uncle, Ram Krishan had celebrated her marriage.  After he  

came to know about the death of Susheela, he filed a complaint at 9:30  

a.m. on 29.01.1987 on the basis of  which the further  investigation was  

started and the charge-sheet was filed against the four accused persons.  

Even before that,  A-2,  Krishnaiah expired and hence the charges were  

framed against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 for the offence under Section 302,  

304B, 201 read with Section 34, IPC.   

2

4. After the charges were framed, A-3 Eramma @ Marimadamma also  

expired  and,  therefore,  the  evidence  was  recorded  only  against  the  

appellant/original  accused No.1 Govindaraju  and his brother A-4,  Vasu.  

The prosecution case initially was that at the time of marriage the accused  

had demanded the dowry  of  Rs.5,000/-  and even thereafter  during the  

subsistence of marriage he kept on pestering Susheela and her uncle for  

dowry.  At the time when Susheela expired she was pregnant.  She was  

treated by her in-laws in a cruel manner and ultimately murdered, or as the  

case may be, she committed suicide due to the cruel treatment of her in-

laws and her husband.  As a result of this, she died barely within a few  

months of her marriage.  In support  of the prosecution case number of  

witnesses came to be examined including PW-1, her matrimonial  uncle,  

PW-2, her brother, PW-3 another elderly relative and her mother as also  

some  other  relations  including  PW-4  along  with  other  witnesses  on  

investigation and the medical aspect.   

5. Initially, the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore acquitted all the  

accused persons which acquittal  was  challenged before the High Court  

which set aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge insofar as the present  

appellant is concerned and convicted him for the offence under Section  

304-B.

6. The  Learned  Counsel,  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant,  

vehemently  contended  that  the  High  Court  had  erred  in  upsetting  the  

3

judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.  In that, the High Court  

had not found specifically that the findings on acquittal  recorded by the  

Trial Court were in any manner perverse.  He further pointed out that the  

case  of  the  prosecution  was  initially  to  the  effect  that  all  the  accused  

persons had committed murder of Susheela and the charge under Section  

304-B IPC was also be framed against the accused persons.  The charge  

under Section 302 having failed and not having been accepted by the Trial  

Court, the very basis of the prosecution case was knocked down.  This  

aspect has not been considered by the High Court.  Further, the Learned  

Counsel  urged  that  the  story  that  this  accused  (appellant  herein)  in  

particular and all the other accused in general, meted out cruel treatment  

to deceased Susheela, was a myth, as there is no evidence, whatsoever,  

to suggest that  Susheela was,  in any manner,  physically  tortured or  ill-

treated.  The Learned Counsel pointed out that there was no necessity on  

the part of the appellant/accused to claim dowry from the family members  

of Susheela, who he knew, were the poor lot.  This was apart from the fact  

that he himself was earning quite well  being a Cashier in a Bank.  The  

Learned  Counsel  pointed  out  that  even  at  the  time  of  marriage,  the  

husband had not insisted on any dowry.  It is further pointed out that the  

appellant/accused loved his wife and was a caring husband, particularly  

because she was  pregnant.   It  was  missed by the High Court  that  the  

appellant/accused had taken the deceased for a picnic at a place called  

Balamoori,  barely  a  couple  of  days  prior  to  the  incident.   It  was  lastly  

4

suggested  that  the  evidence  of  PWs  1,  2,  3,  4,  6  and  18  was  not  

trustworthy and the witnesses were given to exaggerations.  According to  

the Learned Counsel, the Sessions Judge had taken a possible view of the  

matter and, therefore, the High Court should have given due weight to the  

judgment of acquittal.

7. The  Learned  Counsel,  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  prosecution,  

however, supported the judgment and invited our attention to the evidence  

of  PW-1  Ramakrishna,  PW-2  Doreswamy,  PW-3  Chikkaputtaiah,  PW-4  

Mariyamma,  PW-6 Shankaranarayana,  as  also,  PW-18 Puttasiddamma,  

who is the mother of the deceased.  The Learned prosecutor also invited  

our attention to the fact that the first three witnesses and more particularly,  

the mother had spoken specifically about the demands of dowry by the  

accused and there was very little or no cross-examination on the issue of  

dowry.  Further, all the four witnesses have spoken about the complaint of  

ill-treatment  being  given  by  the  appellant/accused  and  his  parents.  

According to the Counsel,  the death of Susheela being unnatural  death  

within seven years of the marriage and she having been treated cruelly,  

there is a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act,  which  

would nail the accused.  Our attention was also invited to the evidence of  

Doctors.

8. We have seen the judgment of the Trial Court, as well as, the High  

Court closely.  In his judgment, the Sessions Judge was almost convinced  

5

that  this  was  a  case  of  murder.   He  pointed  out  that  there  was  no  

explanation on the part of the accused persons as to how Susheela got  

burnt and who was the person who threw water on the body of Susheela,  

as the body was found wet when the witnesses reached the spot.  The  

Sessions Judge also expressed, though in a halting manner, that though  

when the outsiders reached the house of the accused where the deceased  

died, the door was closed from inside, the said door could be locked from  

inside by putting hand through the window, which had the enough space  

and,  therefore,  the  Sessions  Judge expressed  his  suspicion.   He  also  

pointed out that the case that the deceased had committed suicide and  

had died at 7’ O clock in the morning, was also not convincing.  However,  

the  Sessions  Judge  gave  a  benefit  of  doubt  to  discard  the  theory  of  

murder,  on  the  ground  that  the  door  was  locked  from inside  and  was  

closed and had to be broken by all the persons, who came there.  The  

Sessions Judge had noted that there were no soot particles found either in  

the respiratory passage or inside the lungs of the deceased and, therefore,  

a  theory  could  be  propounded  that  she  died  first  and  then  was  burnt.  

However, the Sessions Judge also found that the Doctor, in his evidence,  

had  fixed  the  time  of  death  between  18  to  24  hours  prior  to  the  post  

mortem, which took place on 29.1.1987.  The Sessions Judge had also  

discussed in details the fact that there were no struggle marks on the dead  

body of Susheela, which was a circumstance in favour of the accused to  

rule  out  the theory of  murder.   Be that  as it  may,  the Sessions judge,  

6

however, has in the clearest possible terms, come to the conclusion that  

Susheela had died as she had committed suicide.   

9. It  was  then  that  the  Sessions  Judge  went  on  to  examine  as  to  

whether the suicide was on account of the cruel treatment having been  

given to the deceased Susheela and on that  backdrop,  the Trial  Court  

examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that indeed Susheela  

was in the advance stage of pregnancy and, therefore, it was unlikely that  

she would commit suicide for no reason.  This finding was criticized as an  

inferential finding by the defence, but in our opinion, it would not be so.  

For this purpose, the evidence of PWs, who were the relations would be  

extremely relevant.   

10. In  his  evidence,  PW-1 Ramakrishna spoke  about  the  demand of  

Rs.5,000/- on account of dowry at the time of marriage, which he could not  

arrange and, therefore, had promised the appellant/accused that he would  

pay  later  on  and  that  he  actually  paid  Rs.2,000/-  before  the  death  of  

Susheela.   It  was  pointed  out  by  the  defence  that  there  was  some  

contradiction in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-18 on this issue on payment  

of  Rs.2,000/-.   However,  in  our  opinion,  that  contradiction  is  minor,  

considering the fact that PW-18 is an illiterate person.  When we see the  

evidence of PW-1, who was extensively cross-examined, we find that his  

claim  about  the  demand  of  dowry  remains  unshaken  in  his  cross-

examination.  Here was a poor man, who had to take loans for arranging  

7

the marriage of  his sister’s  daughter though he himself  hardly had any  

income.  He specifically claimed that he took loans from the Society and  

was paying the installments on account of that.  He also specifically stated  

that Susheela complained to him on 2-3 occasions when she had come to  

his  place,  where  her  mother  also  stayed,  that  she  was  in  trouble  on  

account of the non-payment of Rs.5,000/-, which this witness had agreed  

to pay at the time of marriage.  He claimed that the accused persons were  

harassing Susheela for not bringing the balance amount of dowry and that  

every time, he had to pacify.  He also asserted that the accused were not  

sending Susheela to his house at the time of festivals and that they had  

sent Susheela to his house only twice after the marriage.  At this juncture,  

it must be observed that there was hardly any distance between the house  

of this witness and Susheela’s matrimonial house.  Susheela’s house was  

in the other street, which was near the house of the witness.  It is strange  

that a newly married girl like Susheela could be sent to her parental house,  

which is so near only on 2-3 occasions.  That is also the claim of the other  

witnesses like PWs 2, 3 and 18.  PW-1 also pointed out that a day prior to  

death, Susheela was not taking any food and, therefore, he and his elder  

brother’s son Doreswamy (PW-2) went to the house of accused situated in  

the 6th Cross, Ashokapuram, Mysore in the evening and at that time, the  

appellant/accused was not present in his house and Susheela cried on his  

being asked as to why she is not having any food and had expressed that  

she was afraid to continue to live in her husband’s house, as the husband  

8

and  his  relatives  were  harassing  and  that  she  could  be  taken  to  her  

parental house.   

11. The witness further  asserted that when at his instance,  Susheela  

had started taking her  food,  the appellant/accused came there and got  

angry as to how she was having food and he was not called.  At that time  

also,  when  the  witness  wanted  to  take  Susheela  along  with  him,  the  

appellant/accused  expressed  that  she  should  remove  her  Thali  (an  

ornament  worn by a married lady)  and then alone she could leave the  

house.  If this was the treatment received by Susheela and that too before  

her maternal uncle, it could be imagined what could be the state of affairs  

otherwise.  Thereafter, the witness saw only the dead body of the girl.  All  

these  assertions  could  not  be  shaken  in  the  cross-examination  in  any  

manner.  Beyond giving the suggestions that there were no demands from  

bridegroom’s  side  for  dowry,  there  was  hardly  anything  in  his  cross-

examination.  True it is that he admitted that he had not stated about the  

demand  of  the  accused  about  Rs.5,000/-  during  the  marriage  talks.  

However, he explained that the talk of dowry did not take place at the time  

of marriage talks and it was only later that the demand was made.  Some  

stray suggestions were given like Susheela used to come to his house  

often or that he himself was pestering Susheela for money on account of  

the expenditure that he had incurred for her marriage, which the witness  

had refuted.  The most important part is a wild suggestion given to the  

9

witness that Susheela used to move about and that she had an affair with  

one Shridhara,  who  was  the  son of  PW-3 Chikkaputtaiah  and that  the  

appellant/accused had asked the wife  not  to  go  to  the house of  PW-3  

Chikkaputtaiah.  A suggestion was thrown that Susheela wanted to marry  

Shridhara.  Naturally, the suggestion was refuted.

12. This was almost an imaginary case invented by the defence that  

Susheela  had  a  love  affair  with  Shridhara  and  out  of  frustration,  she  

committed suicide.  There is absolutely no basis for this theory.  We have  

examined evidence of PW-3 Chikkaputtaiah very closely on this aspect.  

Even he refuted all the suggestions in this behalf.  It must be remembered  

here  that  the  distance  between  the  house  of  the  accused  and  the  

Susheela’s  maternal  uncle’s  house  could  be  covered within  five  to  ten  

minutes.  Even the house of PW-3 Chikkaputtaiah was near the house of  

PW-1.  Under such circumstances, if Susheela had an affair and used to  

move about with Shridhara prior to her marriage, it was impossible that the  

appellant/accused  would  not  know  about  such  a  liaison.   That  theory  

seems to have been invented only to add colour to Susheela’s suicide and  

was rightly rejected by the Appellate Court.  The fact that Susheela did not  

take food for two days prior to her death, itself goes on to prove the mental  

torture that she suffered and as if it was not sufficient, she was chided by  

the appellant/accused a day prior to her death on the trifle issue that she  

had taken the food earlier to him and he was not called for and that she  

10

could go to her house only after removing her Thali (ornament worn by a  

married lady).   

13. There can be no doubt that in the evening, the appellant/accused  

was  not  present.   The  High  Court  has  appreciated  the  evidence  very  

deeply and in our opinion, the Sessions Judge had gravely erred in not  

accepting the evidence of this witness without any justifiable reason.  It is a  

basic principle that the evidence of witness has to be appreciated as a  

whole,  when  the  evidence  of  an  ordinary  witness,  who  is  not  much  

educated  and  comes  from  a  poor  strata  of  society  not  having  the  

advantage of education.  The Court has to keep in mind all these aspects.  

The  witness  is  not  expected  to  remember  every  small  thing,  more  

particularly  when he faces the shock of  the untimely  death of  his  near  

relative.  The finding reached by the Sessions Judge in his judgment that  

there was no payment of dowry appears to be a totally incorrect finding  

tending  to  be  perverse.   The  main  reason  for  this  appears  to  be  

contradiction in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-18, completely ignoring the  

fact  that  PW-18 was an illiterate woman and could not  be expected to  

remember  the  details  regarding  the  date  on  which  the  amount  of  

Rs.2,000/- was paid to the appellant.  In returning the finding that there  

was  no  dowry  harassment  to  Susheela  by  the  accused  persons,  the  

Sessions  Judge  had  completely  ignored  the  evidence  of  PW-3,  which  

remained  absolutely  unshaken  on  that  issue.   In  fact,  even  PW-5  B.  

11

Puttaiah had supported the case of the dowry harassment and so did PW-

6 Shankaranarayana, who is the immediate neighbour of appellant/A-1.  Of  

course,  PW-6  Shankaranarayana  was  declared  hostile  in  his  cross-

examination.   However,  even  he  had  admitted  that  there  used  to  be  

quarrels  in the house of  the accused persons.   The fantastic  theory of  

Susheela’s love affair with Shridhara was also denied by this witness in his  

cross-examination  by  the  accused.   PW-3  and  PW-5  had  specifically  

referred about the ill treatment of dowry and there was absolutely no cross-

examination on the payment of dowry,  as also the complaints made by  

Susheela against the accused persons that she was ill treated on account  

of  non-payment  of  Rs.5,000/-   The finding  recorded that  there  was  no  

continuous  onslaught,  cruelty  or  harassment  was  clearly  an  incorrect  

finding,  without  even  bothering  to  realize  that  there  was  no  cross-

examination of the witnesses like PWs-1, 3 and 5 on that issue, though  

they had very specifically asserted that Susheela was being ill treated on  

account of dowry.

14. The learned counsel  seriously criticized the judgment of  the High  

Court contending that the High Court had not given due weightage to the  

findings of acquittal  as recorded by the Trail  Court.   When we see the  

judgment of the High Court,  it  is clear that the High court has not only  

considered  the  whole  prosecution  evidence  closely  but  has  also  

considered the defence evidence.  The criticism is not correct.  The High  

12

Court has relied on the judgment of this Court reported as Dhanna Etc. v.   

State of Madhya Pradesh [1996 (10)  SCC 79]  to  show that  the High  

Court  has  full  power  to  review  the  evidence  and  to  arrive  at  its  own  

independent  conclusion  whether  the  appeal  is  against  conviction  or  

acquittal.    The  High  Court  was  also  alive  to  the  situation  that  it  was  

considering  an  acquittal  judgment  wherein,  firstly,  there  was  a  general  

presumption in favour of innocence of the person accused in a criminal  

case, which presumption was strengthened by the acquittal, and further,  

that every accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding  

his guilt and that if the High Court acquitted such accused, he would still  

retain that benefit in the appellate Court also.  The High Court has also  

relied on the ruling reported as Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State Of Gujarat   

[2002 (3) SCC 57]  to the effect that the paramount consideration of the  

Court  would  be to  avoid miscarriage of  justice  arising from acquittal  of  

guilty.  One other judgment rightly relied on by the High Court is  Betal  

Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1996 (8) SCC 205 to the  

effect that the appellate Court can come to its own conclusion about the  

credibility of the witnesses, if such credibility depends on factors other than  

the  demeanor  of  witnesses.   From  the  way  the  evidence  has  been  

appreciated  by  the  High  Court,  it  is  clear  that  the  High  Court  has  

disapproved of  the findings given by the Trial  Court  and has done the  

whole exercise of appreciation of evidence independently.  The High Court  

has given a clear finding in para 28 of its judgment that the Trial Court was  

13

palpably wrong in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt  

of the accused, more particularly, under Section 304B, IPC.  Here was a  

case which  was  completely  covered by  the presumption  under  Section  

113B of the Indian Evidence Act since all the aspects such as the cruelty  

meted out to Susheela, her unnatural death within the time span of seven  

years and constant demands of dowry were proved to the hilt.   

15. We have no doubt that the there were many things than what meets  

the eye in the death of Susheela who died in her own bedroom of burn  

injuries.  We would have expected some explanation on that count.  It was  

clear  that  she died  in  the wee  hours  and yet  there was  nothing,  even  

suggestive, of any explanation.  The High Court has severally commented  

on all  these aspects  and we do not  find anything wrong with  the High  

Court’s judgment.   

16. In that view, we hold that the judgment convicting the accused of the  

offence under Section 304B, IPC is correct and the appeal has no merits.  

It is accordingly dismissed.

………………………………..J. [V.S. SIRPURKAR]

………………………………..J. [R.M.LODHA]

New Delhi; May 29, 2009

14

Digital  Performa

Case  No.           : Criminal  Appeal  No. 570 OF 2003

Date of Decision : 29.05.2009

C.A.V. on : 21.5.2009

Cause Title :  Govindaraju Versus

   State of Karnataka

Coram :   Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar      Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha  

Judgment delivered by  :   Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar

Nature of Judgment :  Reportable

15