REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 891 of 2004

Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors.     …Appellants

Versus

State of Maharashtra              …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order  

of the High Court of Bombay, dated 29.4.2004, passed in Criminal  

Appeal No. 865 of 1987, by which the High Court has reversed the  

judgment and order of the Trial Court acquitting the appellants of the  

charges under Sections 306/34 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code,  

1860 (hereinafter called as `IPC’).

2. Facts  and  circumstances  giving  rise  to  this  case  are  that  

appellant No.1 got married to one Neeru Gupta (hereinafter called as  

`the deceased’) on 1.12.1978 by way of an arranged marriage. Out of  

the said wedlock, a female child named Mili was born in 1981.  There  

had  been  some  disputes  between  the  husband  and  wife  on  petty  

matters. Neeru committed suicide on 28.9.1985 by hanging herself in  

the bathroom when all the other family members had gone outside.  

Rajesh  (PW.2),  brother  of  the  deceased,  filed  a  complaint  dated  

30.9.1985, against the appellants i.e. the husband and parents in law of  

the deceased, alleging that they had been demanding dowry and had  

given ill treatment to the deceased, and that is why Neeru committed  

suicide. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet  

against all  the three appellants on 9.1.1986 under Section 306 read  

with Section 34 IPC and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. The  

prosecution examined a large number of witnesses to substantiate its  

case.  After  the  conclusion  of  the  trial,  the  Sessions  Court  vide  its  

judgment  and  order  dated  21.5.1987,  held  that  the  deceased  had  

committed suicide. However, no role could be attributed to any of the  

appellants for the same, and the prosecution failed to prove any of the  

charges  beyond  reasonable  doubt  against  the  appellants.  The  

2

witnesses examined by the prosecution improved their version with  

regard to claims of the alleged demands, particularly in respect of the  

gold  ornaments  and ill  treatment  of  the  deceased.  The Trial  Court  

came to the conclusion that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy,  

psychosis and depression and had been getting regular treatment for  

the same. Therefore, it was not a case of dowry demand or treating her  

with cruelty.  

3. Being aggrieved, the State of Maharashtra preferred Criminal  

Appeal  No.865 of 1987 before the High Court of Bombay and the  

High Court reversed the order of acquittal,  convicted the appellants  

vide  its  judgment  and  order  dated  29.4.2004  and  imposed  the  

punishment of 3 years RI  on the husband, appellant No.1, and 2 years  

on the other appellants i.e. the in-laws of the deceased. Hence, this  

appeal.  

4. Shri  K.T.S  Tulsi,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellants, has submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate the  

medical evidence and depositions of the prosecution witnesses in the  

right perspective, as the same could not establish conclusively that the  

suicide by the deceased could be attributed to the appellants to any  

3

extent. It was a clear cut case of suicide because of depression, as the  

deceased had been suffering from epilepsy and other mental disorders.  

The  deceased  had  developed  an  illicit  relationship  with  a  family  

friend, Kake, and a letter written by the said Kake had been in the  

possession  of  the  other  family  members  and,  therefore,  they  had  

informed her  parents  and brother  about  the  said illicit  relationship.  

The medical evidence, particularly, the deposition of Dr. Daulatram  

Nekumal Gurbani (PW.10) made it clear that the deceased had been  

suffering from serious depression and such a patient often develops  

suicidal tendencies. The deceased had also made an attempt earlier to  

commit suicide in 1985 and she had been taken to the local hospital.  

Subsequently, she had also been treated at Kanpur.  The findings of  

fact recorded by the Trial Court that there was neither any demand of  

gold  ornaments  or  any  kind  of  dowry,  nor  had the  deceased  been  

subjected to cruelty,  could not be held to be perverse by the High  

Court to bring home the charges against the appellants under Sections  

306 or  498A IPC.  The parents-in-law of the deceased were not living  

at Kalyan, as the appellant No.2 had been transferred to Kurudwadi in  

1983  and  the  deceased  was  living  with  her  husband  i.e.  appellant  

No.1, at Kalyan. The High Court committed an error in shifting the  

4

burden of proof to the defence as the court observed that the defence  

failed to prove its version. In fact the prosecution has to prove its case  

beyond reasonable doubt and the failure of the defence to prove the  

defence version cannot be a ground for conviction. More so, as there  

has been no abetment to suicide, the provisions of Section 306 IPC  

could not be attracted.  Thus, in view of above, the appeal deserves to  

be allowed.  

5. On  the  contrary,  Shri  Sushil  Karanjakar,  learned  counsel  

appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the appeal contending  

that the High Court’s judgment is based on cogent reasons and on a  

proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The High Court has  

correctly reached the conclusion that the findings of fact recorded by  

the Trial Court were perverse.  The High Court is the final court of  

facts, its findings do not deserve to be disturbed by this Court in a  

routine manner.  There is sufficient evidence on record to prove the  

demand of dowry and abetment to suicide. Therefore, no interference  

is  required by this  Court  with the findings of  fact  recorded by the  

High Court. The appeal lacks merit and, thus, is liable to be dismissed.  

5

6. We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  made  by  learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

7. Before proceeding further, it may be pertinent to mention here  

that  Shri  K.T.S  Tulsi,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellants,  has  informed  us  that  appellant  No.3,  Sou.  Pushamalati  

Sambhudayal Gupta died in the month of February,  2010.  In view  

thereof, the appeal by appellant No.3 stands abated and we only have  

to consider the case of appellant Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the husband and  

the father-in-law of the deceased.

8. The  Trial  Court  after  appreciating  the  depositions  of  the  

witnesses and examining the documentary evidence on record came to  

the  conclusion  that  the  alleged  demand  of  gold  ornaments  or  ill-

treatment of the deceased could not be established and none of the  

letters produced by the prosecution has been suggestive of either of  

ill-treatment or demand of dowry. None of the prosecution witnesses,  

i.e. the family members of the deceased, made such allegations either  

while lodging the FIR or in their statements recorded under Section  

161  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973  (hereinafter  called  

‘Cr.P.C.’).  Such allegations had been made for the first time while  

6

making statements before the court during trial. There were material  

contradictions and improvements, which were not mere elaborations  

of their statements already made.  Thus, their statements in regard to  

those allegations were liable to be discarded.

 9. The High Court reversed the findings of fact recorded by the  

Trial  Court,  mainly  relying  upon  the  evidence  of  Dr.  Daulatram  

Nekumal  Gurubani  (PW.10),  as  he  had deposed  that  when he  had  

examined the deceased, she told him that she had been deprived of  

love and affection by her family members. She had no faith in any  

member of her family. He had also opined that it was not a case of  

psychosis,  but  the  deceased  had  been  suffering  from  a  mental  

disorder. The High Court also reached the conclusion that the defence  

failed  to  establish  that  the  deceased  was  suffering  from  epilepsy  

before her marriage. The stay of the deceased along with her parents  

in  a  Guest  House  for  two-three  days  after  going  from Kanpur  to  

Kalyan  has  also  been  taken  by  the  High  Court  as  a  circumstance  

adverse  to  the  appellants.   The  High  Court  also  came  to  the  

conclusions that the intimacy between the deceased and Kake did not  

mean that she had illicit relationship with Kake; and there had been a  

demand of a gold chain by appellant No.3.    

7

10. As the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal and taken  

a view contrary to the view taken by the Trial Court, we have taken  

upon ourselves the task of appreciation of evidence and considered the  

legal and factual issues involved in the case.  

11. Letters written by the parties to each other:

(A) A large number of letters had been placed on record before the  

Trial  Court by both the parties.   Letter dated 24.2.1979 (Ext.P-26),  

written  by  the  deceased  to  her  husband,  about  3  months  after  the  

marriage  reveals  that  there  was  no  problem  in  the  relationship  

between the husband and wife. In fact, it suggests that they had deep  

love and affection for each other.  

(B) Letter dated 3.4.1985, written by appellant no. 2 to the father of  

the deceased, makes it evident that something had gone wrong and the  

behaviour of the deceased had been totally unwarranted, as it revealed  

that she had gone out of the house i.e. on the main road, half-naked  

and she had brought disrepute to the family of her in-laws. However,  

they  had  been  tolerating  such  behaviour.  She  had  lowered  their  

prestige so much that they had not been able to show their faces to  

anyone. It suggested an illicit relationship between the deceased and  

8

one family friend, Kake. It also suggested that the deceased wanted to  

live with the said Kake, as she had developed love for him and she  

was willing to elope with him. It also suggested that it was wrong on  

the part of Smt. Shanti (mother of the deceased) to have been giving  

wrong advice to the deceased and making false allegations that her in-

laws  were  not  treating  her  properly.  According  to  this  letter,  the  

deceased had declared that she was no longer interested in Sunil, her  

husband, as she did not like him any more and in the end appellant  

No.2 had expressed great concern about his grand daughter Mili and  

stated that he was willing to keep her in a hostel so that she could be  

spared  humiliation  because  of  the  illicit  relationship  between  the  

deceased and Kake.  The author of the letter suggested to the father of  

the deceased that he should call the deceased to Kanpur as there could  

be some untoward/disastrous incident in future.   

(C) The undated letter (Ext. P-2) purported to have been written by  

Kake to the deceased, gives an impression that the deceased had not  

only deep intimacy, but something more with Kake. Kake was also in  

possession of some of her photographs which he claimed to be his  

fortune and said that the same would not be returned to her as she had  

requested and would be burnt only with the end of his life.  This letter  

9

also  suggested  that  he  had  the  opportunity  to  have  a  physical  

relationship with her.  

(D) There are several other letters on record showing that after the  

development of the intimacy between Kake and the deceased,  both  

families were disturbed and attempts had been made from both the  

sides to patch up the matter. However, none of the letters suggests any  

demand of dowry or ill treatment to the deceased amounting to cruelty  

by the appellants.   

(E) The letter dated 7.7.1985 written by the complainant, Rajesh,  

brother of the deceased to appellant No.1, is suggestive in nature. It  

suggests that  appellant  no. 1 should try to save the prestige  of the  

family at any cost and forget all that had happened in the past, as the  

deceased was willing to improve herself and accept any advice given  

by  her  husband.  Another  letter  dated  9.7.1985,  written  by  the  

informant,  Rajesh,  brother  of  the  deceased  to  the  appellant  No.2  

revealed  that  the  entire  family  of  the  deceased  had  been  making  

serious attempts at  re-conciliation. Even in this letter there was not  

even a whisper/mention of any demand of dowry or of ill treatment.  

10

(F) The letter dated 18.7.1985 written by the father of the deceased  

to his son Rajesh (PW.2) from Kalyan made it clear that the author  

along with the deceased had gone to Kalyan to meet the family of the  

appellants, and they were not welcomed by the mother-in-law of the  

deceased at the initial stage. They had been staying in Modern Guest  

House  in  the  same  colony.  Appellant  No.1,  the  husband  of  the  

deceased suggested that the deceased should meet her mother-in-law  

and apologies, which was accepted by the deceased. The deceased met  

her mother-in-law and apologized.  After some time, the mother-in-

law became quiet and calm and started behaving properly and all the  

appellants treated them well.  

(G) The un-dated letter  (Ex.P-21)  written by the deceased to her  

father revealed that her mother-in-law wanted her to separate herself  

from the other members of the family and her parents. It also gave the  

impression  that  her  mother-in-law  was  asking  for  a  gold  chain  

(“zanzir ke liye keh rahi thi”) and created problems for her in meeting  

her husband and daughter. After the arrival of her brother-in-law to  

Kalyan, the behaviour of her mother-in-law had improved a lot, but  

her husband being busy in his practice and did not have sufficient time  

to be with her.  

11

(H) From the original record, a letter dated 1.4.1985 (Ext. 16), by  

the mother-in-law to the father of the deceased seems to have been  

written after losing hope completely and concluding that the deceased  

had become incorrigible. The said letter suggests that the relationship  

between  the  deceased  and  her  husband  had  come  to  an  end.  The  

deceased had become a woman of bad character. They had tolerated  

her to a great extent. The deceased had been tutored by her mother;  

she had been misbehaving with them and it had become difficult for  

them to tolerate her any more. The deceased had been using abusive  

language to all the family members. She had lowered their reputation  

and they had been very unlucky to have such a daughter-in-law. As  

she wanted to live with Kake and not with her husband, they did not  

want to have any relationship with her. [Appellant No. 3 had denied  

writing the said letter].

(I) Another  letter  dated  22.5.1985,  is  on  record  written  by  Jai  

Narain  Gupta  from Sandila,  U.P.  (who seems to  be relative  of  the  

deceased) wherein a suggestion had been made to patch up the matter.  

The  author  has  drawn the  inference  that  the  problems  were  being  

created for the deceased, and she has been treated with cruelty as her  

in-laws did not receive dowry according to their expectations, though,  

12

there is no allegation that there has been any demand of dowry and for  

not giving the same.  

(J) The undated letter written by the deceased to her aunt Manorma  

Gupta at Barabanki does not suggest anything against the accused, as  

the deceased had written that everything was fine and that she would  

discuss things when they met.  The undated letter written by her aunt  

in reply, suggests that there was something amiss. She had mentioned  

that the whole family was very disturbed, but they were not able to  

suggest any solution.  There was nothing to worry or fear as all of  

them were with the deceased and she also told the deceased to face  

things with courage, as she had equal rights to stay in the house and to  

fight for justice.

 12.     Depositions of Prosecution witnesses (Relevant parts):

(I) Dr.  Mohan  Kulkarni,  a  practicing  doctor  residing in the same building (PW.1)-  

“I know both accused Nos. 2 and 3 used to  occasionally visit their block at Waldhuni (Kalyan)  after  transfer  of  accused No.2 at  Kurduwadi…..I  have  no  any  personal  knowledge  about  the  relations  in  between  accused  No.1  and  his  deceased  wife…..It  is  true  that  I  was  told  by  accused No.1 some four or five month before the  incident that his wife Guddi was getting the attacks  of epileptic fits. The ailment of epileptic fits is of  

13

neurological problems. I say that these medicines  namely used in neurological problems as gardenal,  have  their  side  effects  on  the  patient.  E.C.T.  (Electro Convulsive Therapy) treatment is given to  mental  patients  of  some  sort.  If  a  person  shows  abnormal  signs  then  he  is  branded  as  a  mental  patient.  I  say  that  those  who  have  tendency  of  mental depression they tend to commit suicide. It  is true that mental disorder in some cases creates  mental depression.”

(II) Rajesh (PW.2) (Brother of the deceased)-  

“It is true that there was nothing wrong in  between the accused and Neeru till the delivery of  a  female  child  and  everything  was  smooth  and  cordial, in between them……

I  cannot  say  why  it  is  not  disclosed  specifically in my complaint that as accused no.3  instructed  Neeru  to  fetch  golden  ornaments  on  account  of  my  marriage  ceremony,  my  father  presented  with  four  golden  bangles  in  the  ceremony…….

I  cannot  say  why  it  is  not  stated  in  my  complaint that after the birth of her daughter we  presented  Neeru  with  two  golden  ear  rings  and  golden  chain  of  two  tolas  because  those  were  demanded by her husband’s family members…..

As I did not remember the exact account of  the remaining ornaments presented to Neeru by us  as and when demanded by her in laws.  I did not  narrate about them in the complaint.   Except my  words  I  have  no documentary  evidence  to  show  how  many  golden  ornaments  were  presented  to  Neeru and when……

14

There  is  no reference  to  golden chain any  other letters except letter (Exh.21) sent by Neeru to  my parents and myself.  That golden chain we give  to Neeru in 1985 was weighing 2 and ½ tolas…..

The only reference about  the golden chain  asked  for  by  accused  no.3  appears  in  letter  (Exh.21) sent by Neeru to us after she was reached  at her in laws place on 24.8.1985.”

(III) Manorma (PW.7) Aunt of deceased-

“She  told  me  that  accused  persons  had  demanded a golden chain from her and hence she  was not being called back now shown inland letter  dated 10.7.1985 which is written by me to Neeru  alias Guddi at Kanpur…..  

I have not stated before the police that when  I  met  Neeru  in  March  1985  she  told  me  that  accused  persons  were  demanding  more  golden  ornaments from her and that they were keeping her  starving  and  were  not  allowing  her  to  meet  her  daughter Mili, and that  she was craving to meet  Mili.   As I was not well  at  that time I forgot to  narrate the things before the police.   I  have told  this fact for the first time to the court…...

I  have  not  written  specifically  in  my  two  letters (Exh.39 and 40) addressed to  my brother  and sister in law that Neeru told me that she was  subjected  to physical  assault  by the  accused and  that  she  was  kept  starving  by  the  accused  and  further accused demanded golden ornaments from  her.”

15

(IV) Ramkishan Gupta (PW.8) Father of deceased-

“I then arranged for a golden chain and sent  Rajesh along with Neeru with a golden chain to  Kalyan on 24.8.1985.  Rajesh handed over golden  chain  to  accused,  and  left  Neeru  in  her  in  laws  house and returned back to Kanpur. After 15 days  we received a telegram sent by brother of accused  no.1 Pradeep Kumar that all was well in the house  at Kalyan.  On 29.9.1985 we received a phone call  informing us the said news of death of Neeru…..

I  have  not  stated  in  letter  (Exh.23/1)  that  while  we  were  standing  out  side  the  house  of  accused  and  requesting  them  to  accept  Neeru,  accused  no.3  demanded  a  golden  chain  from us  and refused to allow Neeru to see her daughter in  side  the  house,  because  Rajesh already knew all  these  things  at  Kanpur.   I  have  no  documentary  evidence  except  my  words  to  show  that  I  had  written to my sister Manorama and to my brother  that accused persons were demanding……

I  have  not  stated  in  either  of  my  two  statements  before  the  police  that  when  accused  no.3 came to attend the wedding of my son Rajesh  she  demanded  golden  ornaments  for  herself  (Accused no.3).  I have not stated in either of my  two statements before the police that even after the  delivery  of  Neeru  in  1981  none  of  the  accused  persons came to Kanpur to visit her.  I have not  stated in my first statement dated 1.10.1985 before  the police that  when Neeru came for delivery at  Kanpur  she  informed  us  that  accused  no.3  was  demanding golden ornaments from her…..

I  have  not  stated  in  either  of  my  two  statements  specifically  that  when I  and my wife  went to the house of accused on 17.2.1985 we met  all  three accused at the entrance and all  of them  

16

asked me whether I had brought golden ornaments  or  had  come  empty  handed,  and  that  they  had  already  asked  Rajesh  to  bring  along  golden  ornaments and whereupon I told all three accused  that I had not brought along golden ornaments as I  was  not  having  them  and  where  upon  all  three  accused pointed out towards Neeru and said as to  how all those accused had driven Neeru to such a  condition  and  that  they  would  further  make  her  condition miserable.  I have not stated in either of  my  two  statements  before  the  police  that  when  Neeru returned back to our house in March 1985  she told us that all accused told her that till their  demand  for  cash  and  ornaments  was  not  made,  they would not allow Mili to go along with Neeru.  I  have not stated in either of my two statements  before the police that  when accused nos.2 and 3  had  come  to  attend  the  marriage  ceremony  at  Kanpur in the month of March 1985 accused nos.2  and 3 did not allow me to meet Mili.  I had not  stated in  either  of  my two statements  before the  police that when Rajesh brought back Neeru in the  month of June 1985 at Kanpur Neeru told me that  she was not allowed  to meet her daughter Mili in  the house of her husband and accused no.3 asked  her if she had brought golden chain or not.”  

(V) Daulatram Nekumal Gurubani (PW.10), Doctor-

“In the mid of February, 1985 accused No.1  told me that his wife has become aggressive and  was  not  co-operative  and  also  used  to  become  violent.  When  I  reached  the  house  of  accused  No.1, there I met accused No.2 and Accused No.3.  I  examined  Neerubai,  the  wife  of  accused No.1.  She was lying in store room and was not in a mood  to  talk  anything  with  me  even  she  become  aggressive with me in the sense she was not co- operative  with  me.  Accused  No.1  told  Neerubai  

17

that  I  was  psychotherapist  of  Thane  Mental  Hospital  and  then  Neeru  asked  me  whether  I  treated my wife in the same way she was being  treated by her husband accused No.1. She showed  me injury marks bruises on her both knees and a  small injury on the lower lip and also bruises on  the back. She also told me that she was beaten by  her family members and by a ward boy of hospital.  She also told me that she had been maltreated by  her husband, by her mother in law. She also told  me  that,  her  ornaments  were  being  worn  by  accused No.3. On seeing the injury marks on her  person I talked with accused No.1 and asked for  details.  Accused No.1 told me that as Neeru had  become violent and we were controlling her it was  possible that she sustained small bruises…..

Accused  No.1  told  me  that  his  wife  was  suffering  from  epileptic  fits  since  before  her  marriage and that she was on Geroin tablets. I told  him that there were side effects of this drug and the  drug should be stopped after 3 years. He told me  that she was on drug for so many years and she is  maintained on that  drugs.  I  told him to continue  with above tablets and consult Neurologist if she is  suffering  from the  above  ailments.  I  visited  her  place for 4 times in the same month i.e. February,  1985.  During  all  those  visits  I  never  found  any  signs of epileptic fits……  

Cross examination:

I  started  my  practice  in  January  1985  at  Ulhasnagar  and  handed  the  case  of  Neeru  in  February 1985 after I passed my M.D. Degree in  Psychiatry  in  July  1984  though  I  joined  mental  hospital at Thane as Medical Officer……

I  agree  that  even  in  major  epilepsy  this  medicine  Geroin  is  prescribed.  It  will  not  be  

18

correct to say that because I prescribed medicine  Geroin  I  was  convinced  that  the  patient  was  suffering from major epilepsy. Even though I knew  that drug Geroin carried side effect yet I prescribed  it  though  I  knew  she  had  no  sign  of  epilepsy  because  once  the  drug  is  started  it  cannot  be  abruptly  discontinued  otherwise  the  patient  may  get fits.  I stick to the proposition that if an anti- convulsent drugs such as Geroin is given for long  period and withdrawn abruptly then she may get  convulsions.  I  am  backed  by  authority.  Clinical  examination alone cannot decide whether a patient  is  suffering  from  epilepsy  or  not.  Patient  of  epilepsy may have a grand-mal or petit-mal.  It is  true that dose of Geroin daily is more in case of  grand-mal than in the case of petit-mal. It is true  that a maximum dose of Geroin tablets is 4 tablets  3 times a day. I agree that brain scan, EEG and X- ray of all the skull are required for investigations  in cases of epilepsy….  

It  is  true  that  drugs  at  Sr.  Nos.  1  to  5  prescribed  by  me  to  Mrs.  Neeru  wife  Exh.46  are  normally  prescribed  in  a  case  of  epilepsy  with  psychoses  and  in  depressive  state….I  have  prescribed  to  Neeru  E.C.T.  treatment…..It  is  not  stated in my prescription letter (Exh.46) that if the  drug as Sr. Nos. 1 to 5 prescribed to Neeru do not  work out, then E.C.T. therapy should be started to  her, though verbally told her so. It is true that I have  not  specifically  stated  in  my  prescription  letter  (Exh.46) at any time during my visits to Mrs. Neeru  on 4 or 5 occasions that as the drugs at Sr.Nos. 1 to  5 in (Exh.46) were working, E.C.T. therapy was not  essential…..I have not stated in my police statement  that  the  room in  which  Neeru  was  found was  an  unkept  room  or  a  store  room.  I  have  not  stated  before  the  police  that  when  I  was  introduced  to  Neeru as a psychiatrist,  Neeru asked me whether I  treat my wife in the same way as she was treated by  

19

her husband. I have not stated before the police that  before Neeru was examined by me she told me that  she was harassed by accused persons and that her  ornaments were worn by accused No.3……

I  have  not  stated  before  the  police  that  I  examined Neeru and found that there was not any  gross psychological  problem but she was mentally  disturbed and I found that she had no faith in any of  the members of the family and I found that she was  deprived  of  love,  affection  and  sympathy  of  her  family members. I have not stated before the police  that accused No.1 told me she was also epileptic but  I  did  not  find  any  signs  and  symptoms  of  that  disease with her. I have not stated before the police  that I requested accused No.1 where was the X-ray  of skull and other investigation papers and accused  No.1 told me that his wife was suffering of epileptic  fits since before her marriage and that she was on  geroin tablet. I have not stated before the police that  I told him that there were side effects of this drug  and the drug should be stopped after 3 years…..  

I  agree that Mrs.  Neeru did not meet  me in  April 1985 but she brought the letter of April 1985  of  Dr.  S.  Mahendru in the month of June 1985. I  have not stated before the police that Neeru either  met me in April 1985 or in June 1985. Beyond my  word there is no any other evidence to show that in  September 1985 accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to me. I  have not stated before the police that both accused  Nos. 1 and 2 later on told me that Neeru committed  suicide  and  that  they  needed  certificate  about  her  mental condition…..”

20

(VI) Dr. Ramesh Kumar Mahendru (PW.12) – Doctor  from Kanpur :

                 x x x     

“…..I say that the experts prescribed E.C.T. (Electro  Convulsive  treatment)  in  cases  of  retarded  depression  and,  manic  depressive  psychosis.  I  am  shown  the  chart  today  by  the  learned  Defence  counsel  in  which  the  prescription  of  medicines  advised  by  Dr.  Gurubani  for  Niru  and by me  are  practically  same  except  with  a  difference  that  the  medicines mentioned at Sr.No.4 does not potentiate  as  anti  depressants  but  it  prevents  the  reactions  caused  by  the  medicines  stated  at  Sr.No.3  in  the  chart…..

Narco therapy is a kind of suggestive psycho  therapy under the influence of narcotic drugs such as  barbiturates.”  

13. The above referred  letters and the depositions of the witnesses  

have  to  be  understood/appreciated  within  the  four  corners  of  law,  

particularly dealing with the issues of reversal of the order of acquittal  

by  the  appellate  court  and  discrepancies/improvement/embellishment  

and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses.

14. Material Contradictions:

While  appreciating  the  evidence,  the  court  has  to  take  into  

consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such  

21

magnitude  that  they  may  materially  affect  the  trial.   Minor  

contradictions,  inconsistencies,  embellishments  or  improvements  on  

trivial  matters  without  effecting  the  core  of  the  prosecution  case  

should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety.  The  

Trial  Court,  after  going through the entire  evidence,  must  form an  

opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court  

in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again  

without justifiable reasons. (Vide:  State Represented by Inspector of  

Police v. Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152).  

15. Where  the  omission(s)  amount  to  a  contradiction,  creating  a  

serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness  

also make material improvements before the court in order to make  

the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence.  

(Vide : State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 11 SCC 106).

16. The discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses, if found to  

be  not  minor  in  nature,  may  be  a  ground  for  disbelieving  and  

discrediting their evidence.  In such circumstances, witnesses may not  

inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and  

contradiction  with  other  evidence  or  with  the  statement  already  

22

recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that prosecution proved its  

case  beyond reasonable  doubt.  (Vide:  Mahendra Pratap Singh v.  

State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334).  

17. In  case,  the  complainant  in  the  FIR  or  the  witness  in  his  

statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.,  has not disclosed certain facts  

but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, such version  

lacks credence and is liable to be discarded. (Vide: State Represented  

by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Sait  @ Krishnakumar, (2008)  

15 SCC 440).  

18. In  State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki & Anr., AIR 1981 SC  

1390, while dealing with this issue, this Court observed as under:

“In the depositions of witnesses there are always   normal discrepancies, however honest and truthful   they  may  be.  These  discrepancies  are  due  to   normal  errors  of  observation,  normal  errors  of   memory  due  to  lapse  of  time,  due  to  mental   disposition such as shock and horror at the time of   the  occurrence,  and  the  like.  Material   discrepancies are those which are not normal, and  not expected of a normal person.”

19. The courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy  

belongs.   While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of  

a party’s case, material discrepancies do so. (see:  Syed Ibrahim v.  

23

State of A.P.,  AIR 2006 SC 2908; and  Arumugam v. State,  AIR  

2009 SC 331).

20. In  Bihari  Nath  Goswami  v.  Shiv  Kumar  Singh  &  Ors.,  

(2004) 9 SCC 186, this Court examined the issue and held:

“Exaggerations  per  se  do  not  render  the   evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to   test  credibility  of  the  prosecution  version,  when  the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being  tested on the touchstone of credibility.”

21. While deciding such a case, the Court has to apply the aforesaid  

tests.  Mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as  

improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made  

by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions  

in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect  

the trial or core of the prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the  

witness liable to be discredited.   

Appeal against Acquittal:

22.     It is a well-established principle of law, consistently re-iterated  

and followed by this Court is that while dealing with a judgment of  

acquittal,  an  appellate  court  must  consider  the  entire  evidence  on  

record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial  

24

Court  were  perverse  or  otherwise  unsustainable.  Even  though  the  

appellate court is entitled to consider, whether in arriving at a finding  

of fact, the trial Court had placed the burden of proof incorrectly or  

failed to take into consideration any admissible evidence and/or had  

taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law;  

the  appellate  court  should  not  ordinarily  set  aside  a  judgment  of  

acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of  

the  appellate  court  may  be the  more  probable  one.  The  trial  court  

which has the benefit of watching the demeanor of the witnesses is the  

best judge of the credibility of the witnesses.  

23. Every accused is presumed to be innocent  unless his guilt  is  

proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. Subject to the  

statutory  exceptions,  the  said  principle  forms  the  basis  of  criminal  

jurisprudence in India. The nature of the offence, its seriousness and  

gravity has to be taken into consideration.  

The  appellate  court  should  bear  in  mind  the  presumption  of  

innocence of the accused, and further, that the trial court’s acquittal  

bolsters  the  presumption  of  his  innocence.  Interference  with  the  

decision of the Trial Court in a casual or cavalier manner where the  

25

other  view  is  possible  should  be  avoided,  unless  there  are  good  

reasons for such interference.  

24. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances,  

and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate  

court  can interfere with the order of acquittal.  The findings of fact  

recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have  

been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking  

into  consideration  irrelevant/inadmissible  material.  A  finding  may  

also be said to be perverse if it is ‘against the weight of evidence’, or  

if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of  

irrationality. (See: Balak Ram & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC  

2165;  Shailendra Pratap & Anr.  v.  State of  U.P.,  AIR 2003 SC  

1104;  Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2500;  S.  

Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his LRs. & Ors., AIR 2008  

SC 2066; Arulvelu & Anr. v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206; Ram Singh  

alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 445); and  

Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189).    

25. The  instant  case  is  required  to  be  examined  in  light  of  the  

aforesaid legal principles.  

26

Undoubtedly,  the  record  reveals  that  at  an  initial  stage  the  

relationship between husband and wife had been very cordial and they  

had love and affection for each other. At a later stage when the family  

suspected an illicit relationship between the deceased and Kake, the  

appellants were very much disturbed. Both the families made serious  

attempts  to  re-concile  and  patch  up  the  matter  and  the  appellants  

agreed that the deceased may be given an opportunity to improve her  

behaviour. Thus, admittedly there was a doubt that the deceased had  

developed serious intimacy with Kake, which was much more than  

what happens in normal course with a family friend. Therefore, the  

finding recorded by the High Court that the intimacy between them to  

the  extent  of  having  an  illicit  relationship  was  not  there,  loses  its  

significance, for the reason that even the suspicion of such a matter  

becomes the talk of the town  and the reputation of the family remains  

at stake. The protests on the part of the appellants even on a mere  

suspicion  and  asking  the  deceased  to  keep  distance  from Kake  or  

improve her behaviour is not something which can be termed to be  

unwarranted or uncalled for.  

26. There is ample evidence on record to suggest that the  deceased  

had been suffering from psychosis/mental dis-order. According to Dr.  

27

Daulatram Nekumal Gurubani (PW.10) the ailment was not of a very  

serious  nature.   However,  the  prescriptions  given by Dr.  Gurubani  

(PW.10)  reveal  that  the  deceased had been suffering from serious  

mental  dis-order,  otherwise  such  medicines  could  not  have  been  

prescribed  by  him.  He  has  prescribed  the  deceased  the  medicine  

Geroin  because  he  was  convinced  that  the  deceased  was  suffering  

from major epilepsy, in spite of the fact that he was fully aware that  

the  said  drug  has  side  effects.  He  also  deposed  that  mere  clinical  

examination alone is not sufficient  to decide whether the patient is  

suffering from epilepsy.   He further deposed that such medicine can  

be given to a person suffering from grand-mal epilepsy. More so, had  

it  not  been  the  case  of  serious  ailment  of  mental  dis-order,  the  

question of prescribing and giving E.C.T. to the deceased could not  

arise.  

27. There had been a lot of improvements and contradictions in his  

statements. The witness deposed for the first time in the court during  

the trial, that when  he went to examine the deceased, she was found  

in  an  unkept  room/store  room  and  that  he  was  introduced  to  the  

deceased  as  a  Psychiatrist  and   that  the  deceased  had  asked  him  

whether he treated his wife in the same way as she had been treated by  

28

her husband. None of this was mentioned in his statement recorded by  

the police. Nor it had been recorded therein that the deceased had told  

him that she was harassed by the appellants and her ornaments were  

taken away/worn by her mother in law (A.3).  More so, he had not  

stated in his police statement that the deceased was merely mentally  

disturbed and not suffering from a gross psychological problem. Nor  

had he stated therein that the deceased had told him that she was not  

having any faith in any of her family members and she was deprived  

of  their  love,  affection  and  sympathy.  Such  contradictions  in  his  

statements cannot be held to be mere explanations or elaborations of  

his  version,  but  are  tantamount  to  material  contradictions  or  vital  

omissions. The Rules of appreciation of evidence requires that court  

should not draw conclusions by picking up an isolated sentence of a  

witness without adverting to the statement as a whole.  In such a fact-

situation, it is not safe to rely on his testimony for the simple reason  

that  he  had  made  a  lot  of  improvements/embellishments  while  

deposing  in  court  and  vital  contradictions  exist  with  his  earlier  

recorded statement. Thus, no reliance can be placed on his depositions  

to hold that appellants had ill-treated the deceased or that appellant  

No.3  had  taken  away/worn  her  ornaments  or  that  she  had  been  

29

deprived of their love and affection or that she was not suffering from  

epilepsy etc.  

28. The  deposition  of  Dr.  Mohan  Kulkarni  (PW.1)  reveals  that  

E.C.T. treatment is given only to mental patients, who have mental  

depression and tend to commit suicide; the ailment of epileptic fits is  

a neurological problem.  His statement also suggests that her in-laws  

had not been living with her after 1983, as the appellant No.2 stood  

transferred to Kurudwadi and had shifted to the said transferred place  

and her in-laws had been visiting Kalyan occasionally.  

This  view stands fully  corroborated by the deposition of Dr.  

Ramesh Kumar Mahendru (PW.12), Reader in Psychiatric Medicine,  

Mental  Hospital,  Kanpur,  as  referred  to  herein  above.   He  had  

examined the deceased and prescribed medicines for manic depressive  

Psychosis.  The prescription of this witness substantially remained the  

same as of  Dr. Daulatram Nekumal Gurubani (PW.10).   

The cumulative effect of the medical evidence given by three  

Doctors leads us to the conclusion that deceased had been suffering  

from  manic  depression  and  certainly  had  some  mental/epileptic/  

psychosis problem.

30

29. So far as the other witnesses are concerned, they are the father,  

brother and aunt of the deceased. Thus, being close relatives, in such  

facts and circumstances they might have developed inimical feelings  

towards  the  appellants,  since  they  came to  the  conclusion  that  the  

appellants were responsible for the death of the deceased. However,  

their  depositions  are  full  of  contradictions  and  have  marked  

improvements  from  their  statements  recorded  earlier.  The  

exaggerations and improvements are of such a nature that they make  

their whole statements in respect of the demand for gold ornaments  

and/or  the  ill-treatment  of the deceased liable to total  disregard on  

these counts.   Gold ornaments had been given by the complainants to  

the deceased out of love and free will at the time of the marriage of  

Rajesh  (PW.2)  and  at  the  time  of  delivery  of  her  daughter  Mili.  

Undoubtedly,  Rajesh (PW.2) had alleged in the FIR that  there had  

been demand of gold ornaments by the appellants without any details  

of the same, however, he could not furnish any explanation as why  

this fact had not been disclosed to the police when his statement and  

supplementary statement was recorded.  Also no such inference can  

be drawn from any of the letters on record. Only one un-dated letter  

(Ext.P-21)  written  by  the  deceased  to  her  father  suggests  that  her  

31

mother in-law had been asking for a chain. More so, as the chain had  

been given by the complainants to the deceased just 2/3 months before  

her death, and there is no evidence that any further demand had been  

there,  the  issue  became  totally  irrelevant  in  terms  of  proving  the  

motive, and it cannot be presumed that any demand had been made.  

More  so,  even if   it  is  presumed that  there  was  some demand by  

appellant No.3, as she is no more, and her appeal stands abated,  this  

issue becomes totally irrelevant for the reason that no such allegation  

had ever been made against the remaining two appellants.  

30. So far as the stay of the deceased with her parents after coming  

from Kanpur to Kalyan at the guest house is concerned, admittedly at  

that time the relations between the parties were strained because of the  

suspicion  that  the  deceased  was  having  an  illicit  relationship  with  

Kake. However, it has been admitted by Ramkishan (PW.8), father of  

the deceased, that subsequently the relations became normal and they  

were invited at the house of the appellants after the deceased tendered  

an apology to her mother-in- law.  The said witness did not state in his  

statement before the police that when he went to see the appellants on  

17.2.1985,  they  had  asked  him  whether  he  had  brought  gold  

ornaments  or  had come empty handed or  that  he was told that  the  

32

deceased would not be allowed to live there and they would make her  

condition  even  more  miserable.  Such  an  improvement  was  made  

while deposing in court and no explanation could be furnished by him  

as  to  why  such  vital  facts  were  not  stated  by  him at  the  time  of  

recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.  This statement is  

to be discarded as it is not safe to hold the appellants guilty of the  

offences alleged against them on such an improved version.  

31. The deposition of Manorma (PW.7), aunt of the deceased is by  

no means different, as she had also made major contradictions and  

improvements in her statement made in court. She had not stated in  

her  police  statement  that  the  appellants  were  demanding  gold  

ornaments  from the deceased and her  family  or  that  the appellants  

were keeping the deceased starving and were not allowing her to meet  

her daughter, Mili. The explanation furnished by her that she had not  

been feeling  well  and had forgotten to  narrate  such material  facts,  

cannot be believed.  

32. The statement of Rajesh (PW.2), the brother of the deceased is  

also full of contradictions and suffers from major improvements. The  

contradictions are of such a nature that they impair the whole of his  

33

evidence. The same cannot be held to be clarificatory.  He was not in  

a position to state  what ornaments  his family  had presented to the  

deceased on different occasions. More so, it was not even stated in his  

police statement that after the birth of Mili, his family had given gold  

ornaments as demanded by the appellants. He could not even furnish  

an explanation as to why the demand of a gold chain is not evident  

from any of the letters between the parties, except in the letter (Ext. P-

21).  

33. The  complainants  have  denied  the  receipt  of  letter  dated  

3.4.1985 written by the appellant No.2 to the father of the deceased,  

referred to hereinabove. However, the appellants have produced the  

correspondence with the post office and proved the postal stamp to  

show  that  the  said  letter  had  been  sent  by  registered  A.D.  to  

Ramkishan Gupta (PW.8). The law in this regard is well settled.  

In Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. v. Atmaram Sungomal  

Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433,  this court examined the issue regarding  

the  presumption  of  service  of  letter  sent  by  registered  post  under  

Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and held as under:

“There  is  a  presumption  of  service  of  a   letter sent under registered cover…. No doubt the   

34

presumption  is  rebuttable  and  it  is  open  to  the   party concerned to place evidence before the court   to  rebut  the  presumption  by  showing  that  the   address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or   that  the  postal  authorities  never  tendered  the   registered letter to him…..The burden to rebut the  presumption  lies  on  the  party  challenging  the   factum of service.” (Emphasis added)   

A  similar  view  has  been  re-iterated  by  this  court  in  Chief  

Commissioner of Income Tax (Administration), Bangalore v. V.K.  

Gururaj  &  Ors., (1996)  7  SCC  275;  and  Shimla  Development  

Authority & Ors. v. Santosh Sharma (Smt.) & Anr., (1997) 2 SCC  

637.

In  Harihar Banerji v. Ramshashi Roy, AIR 1918 PC 102, a  

similar  view  had  been  taken  by  the  Privy  Council,  referring  to  

Illustration (f) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

In  view  of  the  above,  it  was  the  responsibility  of  the  

complainants to prove by adducing evidence of the official of the Post  

Office,  Kanpur that the said letter  had not  been delivered to them.  

However,  for  the  reasons  best  known  to  the  prosecution  such  an  

exercise has not been undertaken.   

35

34. The instant case is required to be examined from another angle  

also.  The  marriage  took  place  on  1st December,  1978.   The  

complainant party could not place any correspondence on record prior  

to February 1985 except letter dated 24th February, 1979 written by  

the deceased herself to her husband. However, it goes in favour of the  

appellants.   Therefore,  it  is  evident  that  the controversy arose only  

after the expiry of the period of more than 6 years from the date of  

marriage. It is quite possible that the dispute arose between the parties  

only  because  of  the  suspicion  that  the  deceased  had  developed  an  

illicit relationship with Kake.  Had there been a demand of dowry or  

ill-treatment to her on any other ground by the appellants, there could  

have  been  some  correspondence  between  the  parties  during  the  

aforesaid long period of more than 6 years. None of the prosecution  

witnesses  had made any allegation  of  any demand of  dowry or  ill  

treatment  during  the  said  earlier  period.   It  is  unnatural  that  after  

expiry of such a long period, the appellants suddenly became greedy  

and started demanding ornaments and for not meeting their demand,  

started ill treating the deceased to the extent that she had to commit  

suicide.   Thus,  the  allegations  made  by  the  complainant  party  

remained unnatural and improbable.  More so, the demand had been  

36

only of a thin gold chain which could not be very expensive in those  

days, especially given the socio-economic status of all the parties. For  

the gold ornament worth such a petty amount after the expiry of a  

long period of about 6 ½ years, from the date of marriage, it is not  

natural that the appellants could treat the deceased with such cruelty  

that she was drawn to commit suicide.  

35. It is a clear cut case of gross abuse of the dowry laws.  We find  

it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants on the aforesaid  

counts  based  upon  the  inconsistent,  embellished  and  improved  

statements  of  the  witnesses,  which  materially  contradict  their  

respective  statements  recorded  earlier.   The  High  Court  did  not  

dislodge the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal.  The High  

Court did not make any reference to the deposition of Dr. Daulatram  

Nekumal Gurubani (PW.10) in the cross-examination and dealt with  

the  case  very casually,  adopting a  very superficial  approach to the  

whole matter and brushed aside the allegation of an illicit relationship  

for which there had been documentary evidence on record without  

recording any cogent reasons for the same.  The High Court did not  

make  any  attempt  to  appreciate  the  evidence  with  accuracy  and  

37

reversed  the  findings  of  the  trial  court  which  were  based  on  the  

evidence on record and for which detailed reasons had been assigned.  

36. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.   The  

judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, dated 29.4.2004,  

passed  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  865  of  1987  is  set  aside.   The  

judgment and order of the Trial court in Sessions Case No. 25/1986  

dated 21.5.1987 is hereby restored. The appellants are on bail.  Their  

bail bonds stand discharged.

……………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

                                                                             …………………………

…J.  (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi,  November 11 , 2010

38

39