ITEM No. 1G                Court No.3                SECTION II (For Judgment)                  

S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1502 2007    

NARENDRA Appellant (s)

                             VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent (s)

Date :05/05/2009   This  Petition was called on for judgment today.           For Appellant (s) Mr. N.Ganpathy, Adv.

 For Respondent(s)   Ms. Anitha Shenoy, adv.                         

Hon'ble  Dr.  Justice  Arijit  Pasayat  pronounced   Judgment  of  the  Bench  

comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed  

judgment.   

         (Shashi Sareen) (Shashi Bala Vij)     Court Master    Court Master  

 Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.  1502 OF 2007

Narendra ….Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High  

Court  setting aside  the judgment  of  acquittal  recorded by learned Third  Additional  Sessions  

Judge, Bangalore.  Learned Sessions Judge have found the accused appellant guilty of offence  

punishable under Section 498(A) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short the ‘IPC’).

2. Background facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant are as follows:

On 13/14.2.1994 Smt. Mythradevi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was done to death in  

the bedroom of the matrimonial home of the deceased. According to 'the investigation reports by  

about 6 a.m. on 14.2.1994 the inmates of the matrimonial home of the deceased learnt about the  

suspicious death of the deceased. By 9.30 a.m. on the very same day parents of the deceased came  

to  the  matrimonial  home of  the  deceased  after  hearing  the  news  of  death  of  their  daughter  

Mythradevi. Father of the deceased (P.W.6) informed the same to the Jurisdictional Police i.e.,  

Srirampura Police Station as per complaint Ex. P.6. Thereafter, first part of investigation under  

Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) proceedings took  

place at about 2 p.m. on the same date after arrival of Taluk Executive Magistrate Mr. Y.M.

Ramachandra Murthy (P.W.1).  His inquest report is at Ex. P.1. The investigating agency kept  

watch over the dead body till the inquest proceedings were conducted, then the dead body was  

shifted for post mortem to Victoria hospital. As it was late in the night, autopsy was done on the  

dead body on 15.2.1994 by Dr. S.B. Patil (P.W.2). He gave postmortem report as per Ex. P2 and  

his opinion is at Ex. P 3. According to him, death was due to asphyxia as a result of compression  

of neck by human hands.

The parents, sisters and other relatives of the deceased were examined. Their statements revealed  

after marriage between the parties,  deceased started living in the matrimonial  home,.  Parents  

visited the deceased on 4 to 5 occasions. The last time the parents saw her alive was on 12.2.1994  

i.e. about two days prior to her death. During this 12 months period of her stay at matrimonial  

home, according to kith and kin, deceased was very depressed, unhappy and was even scared to  

talk to any of kith and kin including the parents, whenever they visited her at matrimonial home.  

During her visits to the parents house, on enquiry they found the cause of her depression and  

unhappiness. It was due to improper treatment at the hands of her husband.  Her husband was not  

talking to her. He was not looking after her well and he did not even like her. This was made  

known to her by coming home at very late hours and not talking to her in the normal way. Last  

visit of her parents on 12.2.94 to invite the deceased and the respondent for their first wedding  

anniversary at the parenta1 house of the deceased was rejected by the husband of the deceased.  

After that, they got the news about her death on 14.2.1994 at about 9 am

The  accused  was  not  found  at  home.  Therefore  a  search  to  apprehend  him  commenced.  

According to P.W. 3 on 15.2.1994 he was apprehended and produced before the Police Inspector  

(P.W. 11) as per the report at Ex.P 4. Prior to that the PSI (PW5) on the basis of the complaint of  

father of the deceased, registered Crime No. 71/94 for the offence punishable under Section 302  

IPC. A spot mahazar was conducted under Ex.P-7, under which M.Os. 6 to 8, blood stained bed  

sheets,  pillow cover  and saree  of  the  deceased were  seized.  During the  inquest  proceedings

personal ornaments of the deceased found on the dead body i.e., M.Os. 1 to 13 including gold  

bangles  and chain  came to be seized.  Ex.  P.8  is  the wedding card.  Exs.  P.9  and 10 are the  

photographs, which were taken at the time of inquest proceedings to show the exact position of  

the dead body in the bedroom of the matrimonial home of the deceased. P.W. 7 is the mother of  

the deceased. P.W. 8 is the elder sister of the deceased, whose statements were also recorded by  

the Taluk Executive Magistrate. P.W. 9 is the panch witness for the inquest proceedings. P.W. 10  

is  the  witness  for  spot  mahazar  (Ex.  P.7),  but  he  resiled  from  the  statement  given  during  

investigation. P.W.11 is the investigating officer, who took up further investigation from P.W.5  

and filed the charge sheet against the appellant-accused.

After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.  Trial court found the evidence not to be  

cogent and directed acquittal.   It is  to be noted that  eleven witnesses were examined by the  

prosecution and two witnesses by the defence.  Accused took the plea that he had gone to another  

place for purchase of milk on 13.2.1994 in the morning and returned only on 14.2.1994 at about  

10.45 am and therefore he was not in any way involved with the crime.

The High Court by the impugned order set aside the acquittal and found the appellant guilty of  

offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498(A) IPC.   

The High Court found that the analysis made by the trial court was erroneous.  The trial court  

should not  have placed reliance on the evidence of DWs 1 & 2 to accept  the plea of  alibi.  

Therefore the trial court should not have directed acquittal.   

3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that two views are  

possible.  On the evidence on record the trial court had taken a view which is a possible one.  

Taking into account the limited scope for interference with the judgment of acquittal, the High  

Court  should not have interfered in the matter.   Further the alibi should have been accepted.

There was no motive, no torture or no demand of dowry.  There is no evidence for establishing  

the accusations either for Section 498A or Section 302 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgment.   

5. In the present case there are certain material aspects which were lost sight of by the  

trial court but have been noted by the High Court.  The dead body was detected in the morning of  

14.2.1994.  Parents of the deceased informed the police and not the inmates.  The parents were  

informed by neighbours and not by the inmates. DW2 has been disbelieved as he was nearly 70  

years of age.  It was highly improbable that he was in employment as a watchman. The trial court  

had held that the evidence of PWs.6 to 8 regarding pressing mark on the neck and injuries on the  

fore arms of the deceased are not corroborated by the medical opinion.  This is factually incorrect.  

The doctor (PW2) had categorically stated that he was of the opinion that death was due to result  

of compression of the neck, and the post mortem report was accordingly issued.  PW6 has stated  

that second opinion was sought for and then the report was given.  The falsity of alibi is an  

additional link.

6. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v.  State of Maharashtra [2006 (10) SCC 681] it has been  

noted as follows:

“The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase  in the last few years. Cases are frequently coming before the courts, where the husband or in-laws  have gone to the  extent of killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are  generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the  prosecution to lead evidence. No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime,  would come forward to depose against another family member. The neighbours, whose evidence  may be of some assistance, are generally reluctant to depose in court as they want to keep aloof  and do not want to antagonise a neighbourhood family. The parents or other family members of  the bride being away from the scene of commission of crime are not in a position to give direct  evidence which may inculpate the real accused except regarding the demand of money or dowry  and harassment caused to the bride. But, it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or  inside the house should go unpunished.

If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the  assailants  have  all  the  opportunity  to  plan  and  commit  the  offence  at  the  time  and  in  circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to  establish the guilt  of the accused if  the strict  principle of circumstantial  evidence, as noticed  above, is insisted upon by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see  that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape.  Both are public duties. (See Stirland v.  Director of Public Prosecutions (1944 AC 315) quoted  with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh [2003(11) SCC 271].) The  law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost  impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to  lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of  the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that  when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is  upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of  this provision and it reads:

“(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a  ticket is on him.”

7. That being so there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

………………..……..…………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………..……..J  (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, May 05, 2009