L. KRISHNA REDDYversusSTATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER & ORS.

                    [2013] 10 S.C.R. 521


                    L. KRISHNA REDDY                              A
                              v.
      STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER & ORS.
           (Criminal Appeal No. 1833 of 2013)
                    OCTOBER 24, 2013
                                                                  B
       [T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 498A r/w s. 34 -· Charges
under - Abated qua husband-accused due to his death -
Parents-in-law (accused) discharged - Held: In the facts of the   C
case, prima facie case not made out against the accused-
parents in law - Hence, rightly discharged - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.227.

     Charges u/ss. 302, 498-A r/w s.34 IPC were framed            D
against the three accused including respondent Nos.2
and 3. The charges abated against the husband-accused
as he committed suicide. The proceedings continued
against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (the parents-in-law
of the deceased). The discharge petition of respondent            E
Nos. 2 and 3 u/s.227 Cr.P.C. was allowed. Hence the
present appeal by the complainant.
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. The Court is neither a substitute nor an F
adjunct of the prosecution. On the contrary, once, a case
is presented to it by the prosecution, its bounden duty
is to sift through the material to ascertain whether a prima
facie case has been established which would justify and
merit the prosecution of a person. The interest of a G
person arraigned as an accused must also be kept in
perspective lest, on the basis of flip'pant or vague or
vindicative accusations, bereft of probative evidence, the
ordeals of a trial have to be needlessly suffered and
                             521                                  H
    522    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A endured. [Para 7] [528-E-F]

        Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Sama! (1979) 3 SCC
   4: 1979 (2) SCR 229 - relied on.
       2. In the present case, the Charge-Sheet does not
B indicate any complicity so far as the parents-in-law of the
  deceased (accused Nos. 2 and 3) are concerned.
  Obviously, if the murder has been committed in
  Pondicherry a direct role in that unfortunate event cannot
  be ascribed to them. It is theoretically possible that they
C may have abetted or conspired in the crime or persuaded
  their son (accused No.1) to have perpetrated the crime.
  However, this version is not forthcoming from the Charge-
  Sheet. The Appellant-complainant, in his statement, had
  alleged that as per the plans of the three accused,
D accused-husband had killed the deceased due to dowry
  harassment. This is the only statement which contains an
  allegation pertaining to the possible conspiracy of the
  husband's parents who, it must be kept in focus, were
  not in Pondicherry at the time when the deceased was
E done to death by her husband. It is not sufficient to
  merely make a bald statement but further catenation
  should exist linking all the conspirators together. Sifting
  through the evidence, i.e., the statement made by several
  witnesses, there is no direct imputation that either of the
F respondent nos. 2 and 3 had either independently or
  along with their deceased son, made a demand for
  dowry. The deceased couple had earlier been living with
  the wife's family, and thereafter independently of either
  of the parents-in-law. In order to make good the
G commission of an offence of criminal conspiracy, it
  should be evident that an agreement between the
  conspirators should have been in existence at the
  material time. Since the prosecution would be an exercise
  in futility it should be brought to a quick end. [Paras 6 and
H 8] [526-G-H; 527-A-E, F-G; 529-A]
 L. KRISHNA REDDY v. STATE BY STATION HOUSE             523
               OFFICER & ORS.
     Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K. Narayana Rao      A
(2012) 9 SCC 512:2012 (9) SCR 54; State of Haryana vs.
Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335:1991 (1) Suppl. SCR
387; Stree Atyachar Virod~i Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal
Chordia and Anr. (1989) 1 SCC 715: 1989 (1) SCR 560 •
relied on.                                                    B

                    Case Law Reference:
    2012 (9) SCR 54              relied on        Para 6
    1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 387      relied on        Para 6
                                                              c
    1989 (1) SCR 560             relied on        Para 7
    1979 (2) SCR 229             relied on        Para 7
    CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal ·
No. 1833 of 2013.                                        D

    From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2011 of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 761 of
2010.

    D. Rama Krishna Reddy, D. Bharathi Reddy for the · E
Appellant.

   Altaf Ahmed, P. Venkat Reddy, Anil Kumar Tandale for the
Respondent.
                                                              F
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted. This Appeal
assails the Order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras
while exercising its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction. The facts
disclose a human tragedy. Ramachandra Reddy was married G
to Sujatha on 2.5.1999. At the initial stages of their marriage
the deceased couple was staying with the bride's relatives,
significantly, not with her parents-in-law who are the remaining
accused. They had set up their own separate residence about
six months prior to the unfortunate incidents. On 26.3.2006 . H
    524       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A · Sujatha was found murdered in the hotel room in Pondicherry
    [now Puducherry] rented by her soon to be deceased husband.
    Her body bore several stab wounds. Thereupon, Crime No.86/
    2006 under Section 302 IPC dated 26.3.2006, leading to
    Charge Sheet No.59/2007 dated 31.5.2007 under Sections
B 302, 498-A read with 34, IPC was registered. It then transpires
    that the husband of the deceased, namely, Ramachandra
    Reddy, possibly suffering from guilt and remorse, committed
    suicide shortly thereafter. The question before us is whether the
    criminal proceedings could or should have been continued
c   against his parents, namely Vidyasagar and Narasamma, who
    had preferred a Discharge Petition under Section 227 of the
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.PC' henceforward) in
    which they eventually succeeded.

          2. The Final Report dated 31.5.2007 reads so -
D
          "Since the date of marriage at the residence at No.2-7/
          10, Lakma Reddy Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad, the accused
          No.1 Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Vidyasagar Reddy, No.-
          7/10, Lakma Reddy Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad (husband
E         of the deceased) who is no more now, the accused No.2.
          Vidyasagar Reddy, S/o Ramachandra Reddy, No.2-7/10,
          Lakma Reddy Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad (Father-in-law of
          the deceased) and the accused No.3 Narasamma Reddy,
          w/o Vidyasagar Reddy, No.2-7/10, Lakma Reddy Colony,
F         Uppal, Hyderabad (Mother-in-law) of the deceased, in
          furtherance of their common intention, subjected the
          deceased Sujatha to cruelty and harassment relating to
          dowry demand and rendered themselves liable to be
          punished u/sec.498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC.
G               That on 25.3.2006 at about 19.00 hrs. at Room
          No.306, Hotel Aruna, Second Floor, No.3, Zamindar
          Garden, near Ajantha Theatre, S.V.P. Salai, Muthialpe,
          Puducherry-3, about 800 meters South-East to PS,
          accused No.1 noted above in furtherance of common
H         intention with his father, the second accused and his
  L. KRISHNA REDDY v. STATE BY STATION HOUSE 525
        OFFICER & ORS. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]
     mother, the third accused, caused death of his wife             A
     Sujatha, as she was unable to meet out their unlawful
     demand of dowry by inflicting 11 multiple injuries by means
     of knife with the knowledge that such injuries would be
     likely to cause death or would be sufficient in the ordinary
     course of nature to cause death and rendered themselves         B
     liable to be punished u/sec.302 IPC r/w 34 IPC.

           Hence, the charges.

           CHARGE ABATED.
                                                                     c
           The accused above said A 1 Ramachandra Reddy,
     S/o Vidyasagar Reddy, No.2-7110, Lakma Reddy Colony,
     Uppal, Hyderabad had committed suicide by hanging and
     he is no more now. In this connection a separate case in
     Cr.No.244/2006 u/sec.174 Cr.P.C. was registered at PS           D
     D' Nagar, dt.24.9.2006 and investigation was taken-up.

     Therefore, the charge againsi rim is abated".

      3. The lllrd Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry
 favoured the position that the proceedings could continue           E
 against the Respondent-parents {Accused Nos.2 and 3)
  notwithstanding the devastating death of their son {Accused
 No.1) despite prosecution against him having abated. The
  Learned Additional Sessions Judge specifically recorded the
 fact that the Public Prosecutor had conceded that there             F
·appeared to· be no direct involvement of the father-in-law and
 mother-in-law in the murder, but that since it was a murder case
 the discharge may not be considered before the Trial. The
 Learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that the parents were
 implicated only on the basis of the Statements recorded under       G
 Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.; it was of the prima facie view that
 the motive behind the murder of Sujatha was dowry. These
 aspects would be established by the prosecution, beyond all
 reasonable doubts, only in an exhaustive Trial ''where the entire
 truth could be unearthed". It is also evident that the Learned
                                                                     H
    526      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   Additional Sessions Judge was influenced by the direction of
    the High Court, on the petition of the present Appellant, ordering
    that the case be disposed of within two months.

       4. However, the High Court has come to the contrary
  conclusion, after having reviewed the Statements and evidence
8
  available on the record. There is no dispute as regards the
  factum of the deceased married couple having set up their
  separate and independent residence. According to the
  Complainant/Appellant who is the father of the unfortunate lady
C the deceased Sujatha, he had telephonically been informed by
  her that the married couple had left Hyderabad on 23.3.2006
  and were proceeding to Vijayawada. The impugned Judgment
  records that none of the Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
  incriminate the parents of the deceased husband of any
  connection with the offence under Section 302 IPC, and no
D common intention can be inferred. So far as the dowry demands
  and offence under Section 498A goes, the High Court opined
  that even the father of the deceased wife namely the Appellant/
  Complainant in his Statement confined the demand only to his
  deceased son-in-law. Holding this to be insufficient the
E Respondents Nos.2 and 3 have been discharged.

          5. There can be no cavil that if a fine is imposed on an
    accused/convict even upon the death of an accused his estate
    will continue to be liable for its discharge. This is not the case
F   before us inasmuch as that stage in the prosecution has not
    been arrived at. In any event the pecuniary liability of the
    deceased/ convict can be fasten~d only on the beneficiaries
    of his legal estate. There is no evidence whatsoever that this
    is the position that obtains in the present case.

G         6. The Charge Sheet does not indicate any complicity so
    far as the parents of the deceased are concerned. Obviously,
    if the murder has been committed in Pondicherry a direct role
    in that unfortunate event cannot be ascribed to them. Of course,
    it is theoretically possible that they may have abetted or
H
 L. KRISHNA REDDY v. STATE BY STATION HOUSE 527
      OFFICER & ORS. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]
conspired in the crime or persuaded their son to have A
perpetrated the crime. However this version is not forthcoming
from the Charge Sheet. The Appellant, in his Further Statement,
has alleged that - "on the last 25.03.06 night as per the plans
of Ramachandra Reddy, his father Vidyasagar Reddy and
mother Naarasamma, Ramachandra Reddy had killed my B
daughter Sujatha brutally at a Hotel at Pondicherry due to dowry
harassment. .... " This is· the only statement which contains an
allegation pertaining to the possible conspiracy of the husband's
parents who, it must be kept in focus, were not in Pondicherry
at the time when Sujatha was done to death by her husband. c
In our opinion, it is not sufficient to merely make a bald
statement but further catenation should exist linking all the
conspirators together. Sifting through the evidence, i.e., the
Statement made by several witnesses, there is no direct
imputation that either of the Respondent nos.2 and 3 before us D
had either independently or along with their deceased son,
made a demand for dowry. We should not lose sight of the fact
that the deceased couple had earlier been living with the
unfortunate wife's family, and thereafter independently of either
of the parents-in-law. In fact, as has been noted by the High
Court in the impugned order the statement of the complainant E
father ofthe deceased, some demands have been made by
his son-in-law. Out attention has been drawn to a recent
Judgment titled Central Bureau of Investigation v. K.
Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512, wherein after discussing
the previous opinions of t~is Court in a number of cases F
including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC
335, it was opined that in order to make good the commission
of an offence of criminal conspiracy, it should be evident that
an agreement between the conspirators should have been in
existence at the material time.                                   G

     7. Our attention has been drawn to Stree Atyachar Virodhi
Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and Anr. (1989) 1 SCC
715 as well as K. Narayana Rao but we are unable to
appreciate any manner in which they would persuade a Court       H
    528        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A to continue the prosecution of the parents of the deceased.
  After considering Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sama/
  (1979) 3 SCC 4, this Court has expounded the law in these
  words:

          "14 ....... In fact, Section 227, itself contains enough
B
          guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of
          discharging an accused. It provides that 'the judge shall
          discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient
          ground for proceeding against the accused'. The 'ground'
          in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground
c         for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or
          the innocence of the accused will be determined and not
          at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need
          not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing
          the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various
D         aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the
          evidentiary material on record if generally accepted, would
          reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more
          need be enquired into."

E      The Court is neither a substitute nor an adjunct of the
  prosecution. On the contrary, once a case is presented to it by
  the prosecution, its bounden duty is to sift through the material
  to ascertain whether a prima facie case has been established
  which would justify and merit the prosecution of a person. The
F interest of a person arraigned as an accused must also be kept
  in perspective lest, on the basis of flippant or vague or
  vindicative accusations, bereft of probative evidence, the
  ordeals of a trial have to be needlessly suffered and endured.
  We hasten to clarify that we think the statements of the
  complainant are those of an anguished father who has lost his
G daughter due to the greed and cruelty of his son-in-law. As we
  have already noted, the husband has taken his own life possibly
  in remorse and repentance. The death of a child even to
  avaricious parents is the worst conceivable punishment.

H
L. KRISHNA REDDY v. STATE BY STATION HOUSE 529
     OFFICER & ORS. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]
     8. Since the prosecution would be an exercise in futility it   A
should be brought to a quick end; and this is possible only if
an order of di.scharge vis-a-vis the parents who are the
remaining ~ccused is passed. This is exactly what has
transpired in the wisdom of the High Court by means of the
impugned Order. We find no error therein. Accordingly the           B
appeal is dismissed.

K.K.T.                                      Appeal dismissed.