http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SANTOSH RANI JAIN & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/07/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI J.      Both these  appeals arise  out of  the judgment  of the High Court  of  Calcutta  in  criminal  appeal  No.  337/85. accused and  criminal Appeal  No. 483/87 is filed by the two convicted accused and Criminal Appeal No. 411/95 is filed by the State  as the  third Accused  was acquitted  by the High court. All  the three  accused were convicted by trial court under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC for causing death of Neelam  @ Pinky.  The High Court confirmed the conviction of santosh  Rani and  Virendra, mother-in-law and husband of Neelam respectively  but acquitted  Rabindra, brother-in-law of Neelam.      Neelam and  married Virender  Kumar Jain about 4 months before  the  date  of  the  incident  which  took  place  on 7.9.1980. The  prosecution case  was  that  soon  after  the marriage, particularly  the mother-in-law  and  her  husband started harassing  and torturing  her as  proper  amount  of dowry was not paid. Initially the brother of Neelam had paid Rs. 11,000/-  and after few days Rs. 11,000/- more were paid as dowry.  As chiman  Lal, father-in-law of Neelam was still not satisfied  with that amount The brother of Neelam gave a pay order  of Rs.  22,500/- in his name. A few days prior to the incident  her brother  gave some  golden ornaments also. All the  ornaments of Neelam were taken away from her by her in-laws. It was also the prosecution case that on the day of the incident  all the  3 accused  mercilessly beat  her  and threw  her   dead  body   on  the   pavement  outside  their residential building.  After some  time they  took the  dead body  to   the  hospital   and  reported   to  the  hospital authorities that  she had  jumped from  11th floor  of their house and had received injuries as a result of the fall.      As there was no direct evidence to prove who caused the death of  Neelam, the  prosecution led evidence to show that there was a demand for more dowry; and that she was tortured and even beaten on some occasions; that she was administered something few  days prior  to the  date of the incident as a result of  which she  was required  to be taken to a private hospital. The  prosecution also  led evidence  to prove that the accused  had thrown  the dead  body  of  Neelam  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

payment and  after few  minutes had taken it in a car to the hospital. It also relied upon the circumstance that no blood was found  at the  place where the dead body was seen lying. Relying upon  these circumstances  and the  medical evidence which proved  that all  the injuries  found on  the body  of Neelam could  not have been caused by a fall from 11th floor of a  house and  were more  consistent with  her being given blows and  her being  killed in that manner, the trial court came to  the conclusion that it was not a case of suicide as contended by  the accused  by it was a case of homicide. The trial court  also held that the circumstances established by the prosecution  proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the 3 accused  had caused  the death of Neelam in furtherance of their common  intention. The  involvement  of  rabindra  was believed relying  upon the  circumstances that  he had along with the  other two  accused taken  her to the hospital in a private car. The defence of the accused was that Neelam. had committed suicide  by jumping  from the  terrace on the 11th floor. The  trial court  gave good reasons for not accepting this defence  and also  the writing  alleged  to  have  been written by Neelam indicating that she was committing suicide as she  was unhappy  because of harassment and ill treatment by her  in-laws. The  trial court  convicted all  the  three accused under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.      The High Court after reappreciating the evidence agreed with the findings of the trial court regarding the demand of dowry, harassment  and beating.  The High  Court  held  that other incriminating  circumstances were  also satisfactorily established by  the prosecution. The High Court believed the medical evidence  and held  that the  injuries found  on the person of  Neelam were not caused by a fall, but were caused as a  result of  severe beating given to her. The High Court also relied  upon the  circumstance that  no ornaments  were found on  her body and no blood was found at the place where her dead body was seen lying on the pavement. The High Court therefore agreed  with the  findings of the trial court that it was  a case  of homicide  and not suicide. The High Court believed involvement  of the  mother-in-law and  husband  as both of  them used  to harsass, torture and beat her and the mother-in-law also  used to  say that she would soon get her son married  again. The  High Court  did not  agree with the finding of  the trial  court that Rabindra was also involved in committing those offences.      This being  a case  of circumstantial evidence, learned counsel  for   the  appellants  took  through  the  relevant evidence in  order to  show that  all the circumstances were not satisfactorily established. He was, however, not able to point out  how the  evidence establishing  the incriminating circumstances was  not  reliable.  Both  courts  below  have believed the  witnesses and  on reappreciation, we find that the  evidence  led  by  the  prosecution  was  reliable  and sufficient to  establish all  the circumstances  which  have been  relied   upon.  The   medical  evidence  very  clearly established that  it was  not a case of suicide and death of Neelam was homicidal. We also agree with the High Court that death of  Neelam was  caused in  furtherance of  the  common intention of  the husband  and the  mother-in-law. We see no good reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court.      For the  reasons stated  above, both  these appeals are dismissed.      The two appellants were released on bail. Their bail is cancelled and  they are  directed to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining sentence.

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