Supreme Court of India
DEEN DAYAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 6
- Decided
- 7 January 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The appellants were found guilty of dowry death under Sections 498‑A and 304‑B of the IPC.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the death of Asha Devi, who was found dead in a well after 15 months of marriage to Amar Singh. Medical evidence showed two distinct head injuries inconsistent with a fall, indicating she was beaten before being dumped in the well. Witnesses, including the deceased's father, brother, and mother, testified that the husband and his parents repeatedly demanded Rs 10,000 and a gold chain as dowry and subjected her to cruelty when the demand was not met. The Court held that the demand and harassment occurred "soon before" her death, satisfying the requirements of Section 304‑B IPC and the presumption under Section 113‑A of the Evidence Act, thereby upholding the conviction under Sections 498‑A and 304‑B. The appeal against the High Court’s conviction was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence establishes a demand for dowry and cruelty "soon before" the victim's death within the meaning of Section 304‑B IPC.
- Whether the nature of the injuries proves homicide rather than an accidental fall into the well.
- Whether the presumption of dowry death under Section 113‑A of the Evidence Act is attracted.
- Whether the trial court's acquittal can be set aside on appeal.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 379
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 113-A
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304-B, s. 498-A
- Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970s. 2(A)
Subjects
dowry deathSection 304-BSection 498-Acrueltypresumptionmedical evidencehomicidecriminal appeal
Judgment
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 56
A DEEN DAYAL & ORS.
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2006)
JANUARY 07, 2009
B
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.498-A, and 304-8 - Dowry death -
Woman found dead in well - Two injuries found, one on her -
c nose and other in parietal area of the head, which could not
be caused in course of fall into the water- Doctor was definite
that two injuries were the result of two separate blows b.v some
hard and blunt substance - Evidence of witness show that
soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and
D harassment by her husband and in laws due to non fulfilment
of dowry demand - Held: Husband and in laws guilty under '
ss.498-A s.304-8 - Crime against woman.
Evidence - Reading of - Held: To be read as a whole .
and not by plucking out one or two sentences from here and
E there.
Prosecution case was that on 6.9.1998, deceased
was killed by the appellants who were husband and in-
laws and her dead body was thrown in well near the
F hous& of the appellants. The doctors' report was that
cause of death was not by drowning and was due to
coma resulting from head injury, which was possibly
caned by some blunt weapons. The trial court acquitted
the appe11ants. On appeal, High Court convicted the
G appeltants under ss.498A and 3048 IPC.
•
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that
the deceased slipped into the well accidentally and "'
smashed her head against the wall of the well; that there
H 56
DEEN DAYAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 57
\•
was no evidence of demand for dowry by the appellants A
or her being subjected to cruelty or harassment by the
appellants for or in connection with the demand for
dowry and that too soon before her death. In support of
the submission that the appellants did not make any
demand for dowry, the appellant placed reliance on B
certain sentences picked up from the evidence of PW 1,
the father of the deceased. Appellant referred to two
,
..
sentences from the statement of PW 1 in reply to the
court's questions where he said that no dowry was
decided at the time of the marriage and then pointed out c
two or three sentences from his cross examination where
he said that there was no talk of dowry at the time of
engagement and marriage of his daughter.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D
;,
HELD: 1. The contention of appellants that in course
of her fall in the deep well (water surface in the well was
at a depth of 60-70 ft.), deceased might have smashed her
head against the wall of the well and as a result she went
into coma' even before hitting the water surface, is not E
acceptable. According to the investigating officer, the
mouth of the well was half covered by wooden planks
and a pulley was fixed over the other open half for pulling
up the filled up bucket. With that kind of arrangement it
was highly unlikely for a person to slip and fall down in F
the well. But even assuming that such an accident took
place, no injuries as found on the person of deceased
could be caused in course of the fall into the water. The
investigating officer described the well in question as a
kuccha well, that is to say its inner walls were not brick
G
lined. Deceased had suffered two injuries, one over her
~·
nose and the other in the parietal area of the head. The
doctor was quite definite that the two injuries were the
result of two separate blows by some hard and blunt
substance. In cross examination, he said that the two
H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A injuries could be caused by dashing against two different
projections; those could not be caused by a single
projection. It is unlikely that deceased fell down inside the
well and getting her face and head smashed twice against
two projections jutting out from the soft clay inner walls
B without any lining of bricks. There is no manner of doubt
that deceased was first beaten and then her body was
dumped into the well when she was dying or was already
dead. [Para 6) [64-C-H; 65-A]
2. The witness examined by defence stated that the
c appellants kept deceased with great love and affection
and further that she died due to an accidental fall into the
well, and that he himself saw her slipping while bending
down to pull up the bucket full of water and falling into
the well head downwards. The evidence of this witness
D has no value. As a matter of fact the defence witness did
not make any statement before the investigating officer
and was examined for the first time before the trial court.
It also appears from the materials on record that the
appellants' village where the occurrenc~ took place
E belonged to the people of one and the same caste.
During investigation, the co-villagers tried to conceal the _
facts and no one was prepared to give any statement
against the appellants. Thus, on the evidence on record,
. it is fully established that only after fifteen months of her
F marriage and while she was living with the appellants,
deceased died under circumstances that were not only
far from normal but also plainly indicated homicide.
[Paras 7 and 8) [65-8-E)
3.1. The evidence of the witness has to be taken as
G
a whole and not by plucking out one or two sentences
from here and there. In his examination-in-chief PW 1 ,,
clearly stated that in the marriage of his daughter he gave
dowry according to his capacity but the members of the
bridegroom side were not satisfied. Deceased's husband-
H
DEEN DAYAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 59
appellant No.3, father-in-law appellant No.1 and mother- A
in-law appellant No.2 used to demand Rs.10,000/ - and a
chain of gold in addition to what was already given by
him. They made the demand from him. They also made
the demand of dowry from his son when he went to their
place for bringing back deceased. The appellant used to B
beat and abuse deceased for the sake of dowry. When
deceased used to come to their house she would tell that
her in-laws demanded Rs.10,000/ - and a chain of gold
and if the money and the chain were not given then they
would arrange a second marriage of their son. [Para 10] c
[66-C-G]
3.2. PW-1 indeed said that at the time of marriage no
- dowry was decided and the father-in-law of his daughter
said that he would be happy with whatever they gave.
But in the very next sentence he said that after six days D
of marriage they brought back deceased from her
matrimonial home and then his daughter told that her
- mother-in-law was beating her and demanding
Rs. 10, 000/-. PW1 further said that after three to four
• months of marriage he went to the matrimonial home of E
her daughter. He told them (the appellants) not to make
(any further) demand of dowry as he was not in a position
to give them anything. But th~ father-in-law of his
daughter told him that they would not keep his daughter
in their house. Similarly, in his cross-examination he said F
that there was no talk of dowry either at the time of
engagement or at the time of solemnization of marriage
and the appellants took his daughter happily but again
the next sentence was that at the time of departure father-
in-law had refused to take food and he demanded dowry. G
The deposition of PW 1 was full of the assertion about
the appellants demanding Rs.10,000/ - and a gold chain
in dowry and subjecting her daughter to cruelty and
harassment due to non fulfilment of their demand. [Para
11] [67-A-E] H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A 3.3. The evidences of PW 2 and PW 5, the brother and
the mother respectively of the deceased also leave no
room for doubt in regard to the demand of dowry by the
appellants and their subjecting deceased to cruelty and
haras.sment in connection with the demand. From the
8 prosecution evidence, the picture comes out vivid and
clear that in addition to what was given to them the
appellants demanded Rs.10,000/ - and a gold chain. The
evidence on record fully establishes that there was a •
persistent demand of dowry by the appellants and they
c subjected deceased to cruelty and harassment in
connection with the demand and eventually beat her to
death due to its non-fulfilment. [Para 12] [67-E-F; 68-B-C)
4. The words 'soon before her death' occurring in
s.304-B IPC are to be understood in a relative and flexible .-
D sense. Those words cannot be construed as laying down
a rigid period of time to be mechanically applied in each
case. Whether or not the cruelty or harassment meted out
to the vfotim for or in connection with the demand of
dowry was soon before her death and the proximate
E cause of her death, under abnormal circumstances,
would depend upon the facts of each case. There can be
no fixed period of time in this regard. From the evidence
on record, it is clear that there was an unrelenting
demand for dowry and deceased was persistently
F subjected to cruelty and harassment for and in
comwction wtth the demand. Both her parents and her
brother deposed before the court that appellant no.1
once again raised his demand when he had gone to their
house in July 1998 to bring deceased to his place. Their
G inability to meet his demand caused him annoyance and
anger. Deceased was naturally apprehensive and was
very reluctant to go with him. But they somehow
prevailed upon her and made her depart with him. There "'
is thus direct and positive evidence of her being
H
DEEN DAYAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 61
subjected to harassment.
. .
There is nothing to show that
after she was brought to the appellants' place and till her
A
death merely about two months later the situation had
radically changed, the demand of dowry had ceased and
relations had become cordial between the deceased and
the three appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the B
case, deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection
with the appellants' demand for dowry and that was the
proximate cause of her homicidal death. All the
ingredients of s.304-B IPC are fully satisfied and on the
evidence on record no other view is possible but to hold c
that the three appellants are guilty of committing dowry
death. [Para 15) [68-G-H; 69-A-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 67 of 2006.
D
From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.9.2005 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal
No. 2998 of 2001.
Dr. J.N. Dubey, Anurag Dubey, Meenesh Dubey, Anu
E
Sawhney, S.K. Diwakar, D.P. Pandey and S.R. Setia for the
Appellants.
Pramod Swarup, Sahdev Singh and Anuvrat Sharma for
. -"'(
· the Respondent.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. This appeal under Section 379 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 2(A) of
the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate
Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 is at the instance of three appellants. G
111111""
Amar Singh, appellant no.3, is the son of Deen Dayal, appellant
-r no.1 and Smt. Sukhrani, appellant no.2. They were tried for
killing Asha Devi, wife of appellant no.3 for non fulfilment of their
demand for dowry and were charged under sections 498-A and
....
304-B, alternatively section 302 of the Penal Code. At the H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A conclusion of the trial they were acquitted of the charges by
the 4th Additional Session Judge, vide judgment and order
dated April 30, 2001 in Sessions Trial no.740of1998. Against
the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court the State of
U.P. preferred an appeal before the High Court that was
B registered as Govt. Appeal no.2998 of 2001. A Division Bench
of the High Court found and held that in the face of prosecution
evidence the conclusion arrived at by the trial court was wholly
untenable. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set
aside the Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court and
by judgment and order dated September 21, 2005 convicted
c all the three appellants under sections 498-A and 304-8 of the
Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and ten years respectively for the
two offences subject to the direction that the two sentences
would run concurrently. The judgment and order passed by the
D
High Court is brought under appeal to this court by the three
appellants.
2. Dr. J. N. Dubey learned senior counsel made long and
elaborate submissions in support of the appeal. Learned
E counsel first contended that in a criminal case the scope of an
appeal against acquittal is quite different from an appeal
against conviction and sentence. In the former case, if the trial
court has taken one of the two possible views the judgment of
acquittal would not warrant any interference in appeal. Counsel )- .
further submitted that the present case fell under that category
F
and the High Court was in error in interfering with the judgment
of the trial court and substituting its own view in place of the
view taken by trial court. Next, passing over to the merits of
the case, Dr. Dubey submitted that on the evidence on record
several ingredients of the offence of dowry death remained
G unproved and since the prosecution failed to establish all the
necessary conditions no presumption would arise against the ...
appellants under Section 304-B of the Penal Code and Sec.
113-A of the Indian Evidence Act.
H 3. Before examining the submissions made on behalf of
DEEN DAYAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 63
-"' [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
the appellants in any detail it would be useful and proper to state A
certain facts of the case that are admitted or are in any event
undeniable. Asha Devi, the d'eceased was married with
appellant no.3 in June 1997. Fifteen months later she died on
September 6, 1998. At the time of her death she was living with
the appellants. Her dead body was taken out of a well situate B
at a distance of about four hundred paces from the house of
the appellants. Here it must be stated that her death was not
caused by drowning. According to the prosecution, Asha Devi
was killed by the appellants and her dead body was thrown into
the well. The appellants, however, have a different story. Their c
case is that she had gone to fetch water and while pulling up
the pail of water she accidently slipped and fell down into the
well and died.
4. At this stage we may take a look at the medical
evidence. P. W.3, the doctor holding post-mortem on the dead D
body of Asha Devi found the following two injuries
1: Swelling 3 x 3 cm in front upper part of nose.
2: Swelling mark 5 x 5 cm on top and middle of head.
E
On internal examination he found the following injuries :
"Left parietal bone of head was fractured. Membrane was
soiled in blood. There was blood in brain. Bone of nose
was fractured. There was 2 ounce clotted blood in nose. F
There was 2 ounce watery fluid in stomach".
He opined that death was caused due to coma resulting from
head injury. He stated before the court that the injuries were
possibly caused by some blunt weapon. He found no water in
the lungs or the wind pipe. He further said that that if there was G
water in the well then those injuries couldn't possibly have been
caused (by falling down into it). In cross-examination he said
that both the injuries could be caused by dashing against two
different projections; those could be not caused by a single
H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A projection. Under persistent cross-examination he further said
that as a result offalling from a high place with mouth (Sic. face)
facing downward injury no. t could possibly be caused and
injury no.2 could be caused by dashing against some stone.
5. The medical evidence thus fully corroborates the
8
prosecution case that Asha Devi was thrown into the well when
she was already dead or was dying. At any rate she had
stopped breathing as indicated by the absence of any water •
in her lungs or windpipe.
C 6. In order to reconcile the defence case with the medical
evidence Dr. Dubey came up with an explanation. Learned
Counsel suggested that in course of her fall in the deep well
(water surface in the well was at a depth of 60-70 ft.) Asha Devi
might have smashed her head against the wall of the well and
D as a result she went into coma even before hitting the water
surface. We are totally unable to accept the submission.
According to the investigating officer the mouth of the well was
half covered by wooden planks and a pulley was fixed over the
other open half for pulling up the filled up bucket. With that kind
E of arrangement it is highly unlikely for a person to slip and fall
down in the well. But even assuming that such an accident took
place no injuries as found on the person of Asha Devi can be
caused in course of the fall into the water. The investigating
officer described the well in question as a kuccha well, that is
F to say its inner walls were not brick lined. Asha Devi had
suffered two injuries, one over her nose and the other in the
parietal area of the head. The doctor was quite definite that the
two injuries were the result of two separate blows by some hard
and blunt substance. In cross examination he said that the two
injuries could be caused by dashing against two different
G projections; those could not caused by a single projection. We
are completely unable to see Asha Devi falling down inside the
well and getting her face and head smashed twice against two
projections jutting out from the soft clay inner walls without any
lining of bricks. We have no manner of doubt that Asha Devi
H
DEEN DAYAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 65
[AFTAB ALAM, J.)
was first beaten and then her body was dumped into the well A
when she was dying or was already dead.
7. Here, it may be stated that the defence also examined
a witness. He of course said that the appellants kept Asha Devi
with great love and affection and further that she died due to 8
an accidental fall into the well. He himself saw her slipping while
bending down to pull up the bucket full of water and falling into
the well head downwards. The witness has no value in our eyes
and Dr. Dubey too rightly did not even refer to his evidence.
As a matter of fact the defence witness did not make any C
statement before the investigating officer and was examined
for the first time before the trial court. It also appears from the
materials on record that the appellants' village where the
occurrence took place belonged to the people of one and the
same caste. During investigation the co-villagers tried to
conceal the facts and no one was prepared to give any D
statement against the appellants.
8. Thus on the evidence on record we find it fully
- established that only after fifteen months of her marriage and
while she was living with the appellants Asha Devi died under E
circumstances that were not only far from normal but also plainly
indicated homicide.
9. At this stage Dr. Dubey submitted that though Asha Devi
might have died under abnormal circumstances within seven· F
years of her marriage, there was no evidence of any demand
for dowry by the appellants or her being subjected to cruelty or
harassment by the appellants· for or in connection with the
demand for dowry. In any event, there was absolutely no
evidence that any demand for dowry was made soon before
her death on September 6, 1998 and the demand for dowry G
and the cruelty or harassment meted out to her in connection
with the demand were the proximate cause of her death. In
support of the submission that the appellants did not make any
demand for dowry Dr. Dubey heavily relied on certain sentenr.es
picked out from the evidence of PW 1, the father of the H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A deceased. Learned counsel referred to two sentences from the
state~ent of PW 1 in reply to the court's questions where he
said that no dowry was decided at the time of the marriage and
appellant no.1 had said that he would be happy with whatever
they gave. Learned counsel then pointed out two or three
B sentences from his cross examination where he said that there
was no talk of dowry at the time of engagement and marriage
of his daughter; there was no talk of dowry at the time of
solemnization of marriage (taking steps around the sacred fire).
And that the appellants took his daughter happily and at the time
c of departure also there was no talk (of dowry).
10. We find absolutely no substance in the submission. The
evidence of the witness has to be taken as a whole and not by
plucking out one or two sentences from here and there. In his
examination-in-chief PW 1 clearly stated that in the marriage
D of his daughter he gave dowry according to his capacity but the
members of the bridegroom side were not satisfied. Asha
Devi's husband Amar Singh (appellant No.3), father-in-law Deen __
Dayal (appellant No.1) and mother-in-law Sukhrani (appellant
No.2) used to demand Rs.10, 0001 - and a chain of gold in
E addition to what was already given by him. They had made the
demand from him. They had also made the demand of dowry
from his son when he went to their place for bringing back Asha
Devi. The appellant used to beat and abuse her for the sake of
dowry. When Asha Devi used to come to their house she would
F tell them that her in-laws demanded Rs.10, 0001- and a chain
of gold and if the money and the chain were not given then they
would arrange a second marriage of Amar Singh. In July 1998,
Deen Dayal (appellant no. 3) had come to his house for taking
his daughter. Then too he had demanded Rs.10, 0001- and the
G gold chain. He (the witness) had nothing to give; therefore, he
could not give anything. Deen Dayal became annoyed and took
away his daughter Asha Devi with him in angry mood.
11. Dr. Dubey has referred to two sentences in the
statement of PW 1 in reply to the court questions. In reply to the
H
DEEN DAYAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 67
[AFTAB ALAM, J.]
_\
.court questions PW 1 indeed said that at the time of marriage A
no dowry was decided and the father-in-law of his daughter had
said that he would be happy with whatever they gave. But in
the very next sentence he said that after six days of marriage
they brought back Asha Devi from her matrimonial home and
then his daughter told them that his mother-in-law had been B
beating her and demanding Rs.10, 0001-. He further said that
after three to four months of marriage he went to the matrimonial
home of her daughter. He had told them (the appellants) not to
make (any further) demand of dowry as he was not in a position
to give them anything. But the father-in-law of his daughter told c
him that they would not keep his daughter in their house.
Similarly, in his cross-examination he said that there was no
talk of dowry either at the time of engagement or at the time of
solemnization of marriage and the appellants took his daughter
happily but again the next sentence is that at the time of D
departure Deen Dayal had refused to take food and he had
demanded dowry. The deposition of PW 1 is full of the assertion
about the appellants demanding rupees ten thousand and a
gold chain in dowry and subjecting her daughter Asha Devi to
cruelty and harassment due to non fulfilment of their demand.
E
12. Further, the evidences of PW 2 and PW 5, the brother
and the mother respectively of the deceased, leave no room
for doubt in regard to the demand of dowry by the appellants
and their subjecting Asha Devi to cruelty and harassment in
connection with the demand. From the prosecution evidence F
the picture comes out vivid and clear that in addition to what
was given to them the appellants demanded Rs.10, 0001 - and
a gold chain. PW 5 stated before the court as follows:
"At the time of marriage, Amar Singh had demanded chain G
of gold for himself and rupees ten thousand for his father.
After that the demand was repeated many times."
She further stated:
"Two months before death of Asha Devi, Deen Dayal H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A father-in-law of Asha Devi had come to our house for taking
her. Deen Dayal had demanded chain of gold for his son
and rupees ten thousand and he had asked to send Asha
Devi. My daughter was not prepared to go. But we made
her to comprehend and then she was sent. Deen Dayal
B took Asha Devi with him in anger."
The evidence on record fully establishes that there was a
persistent demand of dowry by the appellants and they
subjected Asha Devi to cruelty and harassment in connection
with the demand and eventually beat her to death due to its non-
c fulfilment.
13. Dr. Dubey lastly contended that before any
presumption may be drawn against the appellants it must be
shown that they had made the demand for dowry and in that
D connection subjected Asha Devi to cruelty and harassment
'soon before her death'. He submitted that according to the
prosecution evidence the demand for dowry was last made in
July 1998 when appellant no.1 had gone to bring Asha Devi
from her parents' house and she died on September 6, 1998.
E Thus, according to Dr Dubey, there was no evidence that she
was subjected to any cruelty or harassment soon before her
death and hence, there would be no application of Section 304-
B of the Penal Code and no presumption could be raised
against the appellants as provided under Section 113-A of the ...
F Evidence Act. In support of the submission he relied upon a
very large number of decisions but we see no need to refer to
those decisions as in the facts of the case the submission
appears to us to be completely unacceptable.
14. The words 'soon before her death' occurring in section
G 304 B of the Penal Code are to be understood in a relative and
flexible sense. Those words cannot be construed as laying ,..
down a rigid period of time to be mechanically applied in each
case. Whether or not the cruelty or harassment meted out to
the victim for or in connection with the demand of dowry was
H soon before her death and the proximate cause of her death,
DEEN DAYAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 69
[AFTAB ALAM, J.]
under abnormal circumstances, would depend upon the facts A
of each case. There can be no fixed period of time in this
regard. From the evidence on record, it is clear that there was
an unrelenting demand for dowry and Asha Devi was
persistently subjected to cruelty and haiassment for and in
connection with the demand. Both her parents and her brother B
(PW 1, PW 5 and PW 2) deposed before the court that
appellant no.1 had once again raised his demand when he had
• gone to their house in July 1998 to bring Asha Devi to his place .
Their inability to meet his demand had caused him annoyance
and anger. Asha Devi was naturally apprehensive and was very c
reluctant to go with him. But they somehow prevailed upon her
and made her depart with him. There is thus direct and positive
evidence of her being subjected to harassment. There is nothing
to show that after she was brought to the appellants' place and
till her death on September 6, 1998 merely about two months D
later the situation had radically changed, the demand of dowry
had ceased and relations had become cordial between the
deceased and the three appellants. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that in connection
with the appellants' demand for dowry Asha Devi was subjected E
to cruelty and that was the proximate cause of her homicidal
death.
15. We are satisfied that all the ingredients of Section 304-
8 of the Penal Code are fully satisfied and on the evidence on
record no other view is possible but to hold that the three F
appellants are guilty of committing dowry death.
16. In view of the discussions made above, it follows that
the view taken by the trial court was completely untenable and
the High Court was fully justified in reversing its verdict in appeal G
preferred by the State. We thus find no merit and substance in
any of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. The
appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "dowry death"Sign in to search