Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s acquittal was a miscarriage of justice and restored the conviction, as the circumstantial evidence conclusively proved the joint participation of the accused in the murder.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh prosecuted Ashok Kumar Srivastava, his father Rajendra Lal and sister Sudha for the murder of Meera Srivastava, alleging they set her ablaze over a dowry dispute. The trial court convicted them under Sections 302 and 34 IPC based on the testimony of neighbours (PW1, PW4, PW3) and circumstantial evidence showing the accused’s presence, their indifference, and failure to rescue the victim. The Allahabad High Court overturned the conviction, deeming the evidence unreliable and suggesting suicide. On special leave, the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in disbelieving the key witnesses and whether the circumstantial evidence satisfied the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the High Court’s approach was contrary to the weight of evidence, constituting a miscarriage of justice, and restored the conviction. The Court emphasized the cautious appraisal of circumstantial evidence and affirmed its power under Article 136 to interfere with an acquittal when justice demands.

Issues considered

The High Court's reasoning for acquitting the accused on the basis of alleged unreliability of PW1 and PW4's testimony.
Whether the circumstantial evidence established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC.
Whether the Supreme Court may set aside an acquittal order under Article 136 of the Constitution in cases of miscarriage of justice.
The relevance of the absence of the witnesses' names in the FIR to the credibility of their testimony.
The significance of the accused's failure to attempt rescue of the victim as evidence of participation in murder.

Legislation cited

Subjects

dowry disputemurdercircumstantial evidenceacquittalmiscarriage of justicejoint liabilitySection 302 IPCSection 34 IPCArticle 136Indian Evidence Act

Judgment

STAlE OF U.P.
A
v.
ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JANUARY 14, 1992

[A. M. AHMADI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]
B
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 34 (Occurrence prior to
insertion of Section 304-B ).

Dowry death-Accused-Husband, his father and sister-Conviction
_>. by Trial Court-Re-evaluation and Re-appreciation of evidence by the High
Court-Reversal of conviction order and acquittal of accused by High
c
Courl-Held High Court's order resulted in misca"iage of justice and is
liable to be set aside.

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 13~cope of
D
Murder-Conviction by Trial Court-On appeal acquittal by High
Courl--Appeal against acquittal order--'-l'ower of Supreme Court to appre-
ciate evidence and interfere with acquittal order-Held Supreme Court can
interfere with acquittal order if High Court's order has resulted in miscar-
riage of justice.
E
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 3.

Circumstantial evidence-Appreciation and evaluation of-Court must
adopt a cautious approach-Conviction should be recorded only if all the
links in the chain of evidence fully establish the hypothesis of guilt of the
accused-But prosecution is not bound to meet any and every hypothesis put F
"", forward by accused however far{etched and fanciful it might be.
~
Respondent, A, was married to M, daughter of PW2, at Banaras on
13th May, 1973. Subsequent to their marriage A, who was serving as
Assistant Engineer, was transferred to Lucknow where he hired a two-
room first floor apartment for his residence. The ground floor of the G
house was occupied by the sons of the landlord, PWs 1 and 4. It was
alleged that A, his father and sister were not satisfied with the sufficiency
of the· dowry and therefore all the three were taunting, tormenting and
t,orturing M. During one of their visits to Banaras the question of dowry
was once again raised when A's father and sister misbehaved with M
H
I
-4'
37
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 1 S.C.R.

A and her father and stated that they won't allow M to live with A unless 'r
dowry was made good. When there was a heated argument, A returned
to Lucknow without M. M entreated her father-in-law to permit her to
join A at Lucknow but the latter refused saying that she will have to rot
at Banaras alone unless the dowry amount was made good. Ignoring her
father-in-law's refusal M went to Lucknow to join her husband. On
B coming to know that M had gone to Lucknow A's father and sister
followed her to Lucknow and all the three quarrelled and beat M. On
that very night they sprinkled kerosene on M and set her ablaze.
Thereafter, all the three accused came out of the room shouting 'fire-
fire'. On hearing the shouts PWs 1 and 4 came out of their house and ·,I
)
saw that while M was in flames all the three accused were standing in the :4,_
c verandah talking to each other and were unconcerned about her plight.
None of accused made any effort to extinguish the flames or to rescue
her. PW 1 called the fire brigade and PW 3, a fireman, took M to the
hospital where she was declared dead. On coming to know of the
incident, PW 2, M's father lodged the FIR and all the three accused were
prosecuted for murder.
D
Relying upon the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 and other circum-
stances of the case the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the charge
agains~ all the three accused was made out by prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly the Trial Court convicted them under ...
sections 302134 and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. The
E Trial Court also rejected the theory of accidental death of M.

The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court which on
re-evaluation and re-appreciation of the evidence agreed with the Trial
Court that the presence of PWs 1 and 4 on the scene of occurrence was
probable and natural but suspected the trustworthiness of their evi-
F
dence. Accordingly, it allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction -~
order by holding that the evidence did not disclose the involvement of the
....(
accused and that in all probability the deceased M committed suicide.

The state preferred an appeal before this Court challenging the
G High Court's decision.

Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD : 1. . While appreciating circumstantial evidence the court
must adopt a very cautious approach and should record a conviction
H only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the
L
STATE v. A.K.SRIVASTAVA 39

accused and every hypothesis or innocence is capable of being negatived A
on evidence. Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial
evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two
inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The
circumstance relied upon must be found to have been fully established
and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent
only with the hypothesis of guilt. But this is not to say that the prosecu- B
tion must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused
however far-fetched and fanciful it might be. Nor does .it mean that
prosecution evidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt because the
law permits rejection if the doubt is reasonable and not otherwise.
_>- [46D-E]
c
2. The presumption of innocence or the accused is strengthened,
certainly not weakened, by their acquittal and ordinarily this Court is
slow to interfere with an order of acquittal in exercise of its extraordi-
nary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution, bpt in the instant case
the approach of the High Court has resulted in gross miscarriage of
justice. Therefore it is not possible for this Court to refuse to interfere D
when a gruesome crime is committed which has resulted in the extinction
of a young mother to be. (46-F, 48-DJ

3. The approach of the High Court was wholly against the weight
of evidence. Since PWs 1 and 4 were occupying the ground floor of the
building of which A and M were occupying the first floor their presence E
at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. They had no reason to
falsely implicate the accused persons and have disclosed vital facts such
as the arrival or accused-husband's father and sister hot on the heels or
the return or deceased M from Banaras, quarrels and beating which had
taken place in the past and immediately before the incident between the F
accused persons on the one hand and the deceased M on the other, and
all the three accused having come out shouting 'fire-fire' when. the
deceased was afire and none or the accused having gone to her rescue.
The conduct Qf the three accused persons in not trying to save deceased
M and ill ~bowing total indifference .to her fate speaks volumes or their
culpability. (48-C, 44-B, 47-C, 44-G-H, 46-AJ G
3.1 All the circumstances of the case when taken together leave no
room for doubt that the three accused persons were the joint authors of
the crime. Accordingly the order or acquittal passed by the High Court
is set aside and the order of conviction and sentence pa~ by the ·Trial
Court is restored. (48-C, EJ H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) I S. C. R.

A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 464
of 1979.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.1978 of the Allahabad High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 1976.

B Shiv Pujan Singh and A.S. Pundir for the Appellants.

R.K. Garg and Anil K. Gupta for_the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
;.l._
c AHMADI, J. Meera Srivastava, a young woman aged about 25 years,
died of burns on the night between 20th and 21st July, 1974 at about 2.30
a.m. in the two room aparUnent of her husband Ashok Kumar Srivastava,
original accused No. 1. The marriage had taken place less than a year ago on
13th May, 1973 at Banaras. Both the family of the deceased and the family
of the husband hail from Banaras but after their wedding Ashok who was
D serving as an Assistant Engineer was transferred to Lucknow where he had
hired a two room first floor aparUnent for his residence. The ground floor was
occupied by the landlord. The First Information Report was lOdged by PW 2
J.P. Shrivastava, father of the unfortunate woman, after he rushed by taxi to
Lucknow on learning about the incident. The offence of murder was regis-
tered and in the course of investigation statements of PW 1 Prabhat Kumar
E and PW 4 Rajendra Prasad, both brothers residing on the ground floor came
to be recorded. Statements of other witnesses including PW 3 Ram Raj
Mishra, a fire brigade man, and PW 5 S.K: Srivastava, brother of the
deceased, were also recorded. On a consideration of the evidence of PWs 1
to 5 as well as the evidence of PW 9 Dr. R.K. Aggarwal, the Trial Court,
bearing in mind other circumstances pointed out in the judgment, came to the
F
conclusion that the charge against the three accused was brought home by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. On that conclusion the Trial Court
convicted all the three accused persons under Section 302/34, 1.P.C., and sen-
tenced each of them to imprisonment for life. Feeling aggrieved by this order
of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions
G Judge, Lucknow, the three accused persons preferred an appeal, being
Criminal Appeal No. 913/1976, to the High Court. That appeal was heard by
a Division Bench of the High Court which on a re-evaluation and re-
appreciation of the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that in all
probability the deceased Meera committed suicide and the evidence did not
disclose the involvement of the appellants/accused in the commission of the
H crime. In that view that the High Court took,'lhe High Court allowed the
STATEv. A.K. SRIVASTAVA [AHMADI, J.] 41

appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial A
Court and acquitted all the three appellants/accused. The State of U.P., not
satisfied by the judgment rendered by the High Court approached this Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution. This. Court granted Special Leave to
Appeal and that is how the present appeal is before us. In order to understand
the prosecution case we may now state the facts in brief.
B
Meera and Ashok, both residents of Banaras, were married on 13th
May, 1973 at Banaras. On Ashok being tran.sferred to Lucknow, they
occupied a two room apartment of house number 557/17K. Ashok and his
wife were occupying the first floor whereas PW 1 and PW 4, the two sons
of Kedar Singh to whom the house belonged, occupied the ground floor. The
prosecution case is that at the time of and immediately after the marriage C
there was some bickering in regard to the quantum of dowry paid by the
bride's father. The allegation is that the father and sister of Ashok were not
satisfied with the dowry or expenditure .incurred on gifts by the father of the
deceased Meera. They were of the view that what was paid in cash as well
as by way of gifts at the time of 'Tilak' was short by about Rs. 4,000. On
account of this feeling the three accused were taunting the deceased and D
when she tried to defend her father she was tonnented and tortured by the
accused persons. On 13th July, 1974 both Ashok and Meera had gone to
Banaras. While they were there this question of dowry once again raised its
head and it is alleged that even on that occasion the father and sister of Ashok
misbehaved with Meera and her father and stated that they would not allow
Meera to live with Ashok unless Rs. 4,000 were paid towards dowry. It E
appears that after this exchange of heated words Ashok left for Lucknow on
18th July, 1974 leaving Meera behind. Meera was naturally purturbed. She
wanted to follow him but her father-in-law did not pennit her. She then went
to the house of her friend Madhu and from there called her brother PW 5
Sushil Kumar Srivastava and told him she desired to go. to Lucknow as she F
wanted to find out the attitude of her husband. Despite PW 5 advising her not
to go to Lucknow in view of the threats administered by the father and sister
of Ashok, she went to Lucknow on 20th July, 1974 to the house of her
husband. PW 5 left her there and returned to Banaras by the 2.00 p.m. by
Punjab Mail. On learning about Meera's visit to Lucknow the father and
sister of Ashok also went to Lucknow. The prosecution case is that after they G
reached Lucknow all the three quarrelled and beat Meera during the day and
in the dead of night at about 2.30 or 2.45 a.m., they sprinkled kerosene on
her and set her ablaze. The house was occupied by Ashok, his father Rajendra
Lal and his sister Sudha when the incident occurred. According to the
prosecution at the dead of night these three persons came out of the room
shouting 'fire-fire' and stood in the front verandah of the house while Meera H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 1 S. C.R.

A was still in flames. No effort whatsoever was made by any of them to
extinguish the flames or to rescue her. PW 1 and PW 4 on hearing the shouts
came out of their house. PW 1 ran up to see what had happened. He was
shocked to find that Meera was in flames and the three accused persons were
standing in the verandah talking to ~ch other unconcerned aoout the plight
of the woman. PW 1 thereafter ran to the nearby fire brigade station and
B informed the. staff there about the incident PW 4 had followed P.W. 1
upstairs. He saw the incident from place where he was not visible to the
accused persons. He saw the accused carry Meera to the next room and after
a while brought her back with the tongue protruding out. PW 1 returned with
the fire-brigade men. The fireman, PW 3 Ram Raj Mishra, carried Meera on
a stretcher to the van and then to the Civil Hospital Hazrat Ganj but the
c Medical Officer there could not admit her for want of a vacant bed. She was
therefore sent to Balrampur hospital where the doctor declared her dead.
This, in brief, is the prosecution version reftrding the actual incident.

The father of the girl was informed about the incident and as no train
was immediately available, he hired a taxi and came to Lucknow. He went
D straight to the place of occurrence. Since he was a stranger he talked to
certain persons, including PW 1, and thereafter lodged his First Information
Report, Ka-I, at about 7.00 p.m. at Alam Bagh Police Station, Lucknow. Prior
thereto it may be mentioned that PW 3 Ram Raj Mishra had taken the three
accused persons to the hospital and after they were free from there Ashok's
father went to the Police Station at about 6.15 p.m. to lodge a report about
E his dauhter-in-law's death due to burns. This is how the report Exh. Kha-I
and the F.I.R. Exh. Ka-I came to be recorded.

The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW 1 to PW 5 and
PW 9 Dr. Aggarwal who undertook the post mortem examination to bring
home the guilt against the three accused. On the basis of their evidence and
F the 21 circumstances enumerated by the learned Trial Judge, a conviction
under Section 302/34, I.P.C., was recorded.

The Trial Court came to the conclusion that having regard to the time
at which the incident occurred the presence of PW 1 and PW 4 at the place
G of occurrence is not only probable but also natural. He did not doubt their
testimony when they deposed that they saw the three accused persons
standing in the verandah chit-chatting with each other totally indifferent to
the plight of Meera who was on fire. It also accepted. the testimony of PW
4 that when Meera was dragged to the smaller room her tongue was inside
the mouth, but when she was brought back, her tongue was protruding out,
.H thereby suggesting that the three accused persons made sure her life was
STATE v. A.K. SRIVASTAVA [AHMADI, I.] 43
-(
extinct by strangulating her. This inference is corroborated by medical A
evidence. It also found that the evidence of PW 3 corroborated the evidence
of PWs 1 and 4 to some extent It held that the F.l.R. was lodged without
delay and since PW 2 was a total stranger, the absence of names of witnesses
cannot weaken it. The motive for the crime was dowry. This fact was found
proved from the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5. The fact that Meera was
carrying twins in her womb since six months is proved beyond doubt The B
theory of accidental death had to be brushed aside in view of the presence of
kerosene on the scalp of the deceased. Of the two remaining possibilities, the
Trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence placed on record proved
beyond doubt that death was homicidal as (i) her tongue was protruding out
(ii) there was presence of kerosene and {iii) her stomach was empty. In this
view of the evidence, the learned Trial Judge relying on the evidence of PWs c
1, 3 and 4 and the 21 circumstances set out in the judgment came to the
conclusion that the cumulative effect of the evidence led one to the only
conclusion that the accused persons had done Meera to death. Particular
emphasis was laid on the unnatural conduct of the three accused persons. The
fact that accused Rajinder and Sudha followed Meera to Lucknow and yet
they tried to tell a lie on this point betrayed a guilty conscience. The absence D
of an 'angithi' in the kitchen, the protruding of the tongue and the absconding
of the accused immediately after the incident supplied links to the prosecu-
tion version regarding the incident. On the basis of this evidence, the learned
Trial Judge convicted all the three accused persons of murder with the aid of
Section 34, l.P.C.
E
On appeal, the High Court while agreeing with the Trial Court that the
presence of PWs 1 and 4 was both probable and natural doubled their testi-
mony firstly on the ground that their names did not figure in the F.l.R. filed
by Meera's father even though they had spoken to him about the incident
before he lodged the F.I.R. The High Court observes that 1'is meant that both F
t the witnesses did not disclose anything incriminating the accused persons, for
otherwise such facts would have found a mention in the F.I.R. On the basis
'r
of this inference drawn by the High Court on account of the absence of their
names in the F.1.R., the High Court came to the conclusion that PWs l and
4 had falsely implicated the accused persons at the behest of Meera's father
and his acquaintances and hence their evidence was not beyond suspicion. G
The High Court points out that PW l hailed from Qadirabad of Banaras
District which village was adjacent to village Ghauspur where the
complainant's niece was married to one Bansidhar who happened to be a
friend of the family··of PWs l and 4. One Inspector, Vijay Pratap Singh,
posted at Lucknow was a 'pattidar' of that family and through him Meera's
father had approached the Investigating Officer who in turn succeeded in H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S. C.R.
.,...,
A persuading PWs land 4 to testify against the accused persons. Once the High
Court suspected the trustworthiness of PWs l and 4 it brushed aside the
various circumstances pointed out in the judgment of the Trial Court and
acquitted the accused persons. The question is whether this approach of the
High Court can be sustained?

B As pointed out earlier since PWs l and 4 were occupying the ground
floor of the building of which Ashok and his wife were occupying the first
floor, their presence at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. Nor have
the accused denied their presence in their statements. Even according to the
theory put IJP by the defence the accused persons had come out shouting
'fire-fire' and, therefore, it is not surprising that PWs l and 4 woke up from
c their sleep. PW l immediately rushed to the first floor to find out what had
happened. PW 4 followed him and placed himself at a point from where he
was~not visible to the accused persons. Both these witnesses have deposed
that after Ashok and Meera came to occupy the first floor there used to be
frequent quarrels between them on the question of insufficiency of dowry.
Both of them have deposed that the accused used to beat her and she used
D to confide in their sister. They also deposed that the father and sister of
Ashok had come to Lucknow from Banaras after Meera's brother, PW 5, had
left her at Lucknow and returned to Banaras. The evidence of PWs 2 and 5,
the father and brother of Meera, shows that before Meera returned to
Lucknow there were quarrels between the accused persons on the one side
and she and her family members on the other regarding insufficiency of
E doWI'y. It was after heated exchanges on this account that Ashok left for
Lucknow on 18th July, 1974. Meera entreated her father-in-law to allow her
to go to Lucknow but the latter refused and stated that she would have to rot
at Banaras unless the dowry was made good. Meera, therefore, went to the
residence of her friend Madhu, and from there she sent for her brother PW
5. When her father-in-law returned to the house and found her missing he
F
was annoyed and went to the house of her father and quarrelled with him. Im-
mediately thereafter he and Sudha left for Lucknow and during the day beat
+
J
and quarrelled with Meera. Her husband too joined them. The absence of
food matter in the stomach and small intestines of Meera shows that she did
not take her dinner before she went to bed. Ultimately between 2.30 and 2.45
G a.m. the unfortunate incident took place. PWs 1 and 4, therefore, disclose
three vital facts, namely, (i) the arrival of the Ashok's father and sister hot
on the heels of the return of Meera from Banaras, (ii) quarrels and beating
took place in the past and immediately before the incident between the
accused persons on the one hand and Meera on the other, and (iii) all the
three accused came out shouting 'fire-fire' when Meera was afire at about
H 2.30 or 2.45 a.m. and none went to her rescue. Counsel for the defence
I
*-
'
STATEv. AK.SRIVASTAVA [AHMADI,J.J 45

submitted that Meera had. a flicker of hope that her husband's attitude would A
pe different from that of her father-in-law and sister-in-law but when she
found that he too shared their views she was frustrated and when every one
was fast asleep she poured keresone on herself and committed suicide. This
suggestion would have found favour with us had the conduct of the accused
persons been consistent therewith. The evidence of PWs .1 and 4 clearly
shows that after the accused persons came to reside in their house there were B
frequent quarrels with Meera and she was being beaten by all the three. Even
on the evening of the fateful day she was beaten and kicked by her husband
and the other _two as she was not wanted at Lucknow. On the night of the
incident all the three accused persons came out of the house shouting 'fire-
fire' and stood in the verandah unconcerned about Meera' s fate. They were
seen chit-chatting in a casual manner, by both the witnesses. Besides it must C
be noticed that none of the three accused had any burn marks to suggest that
they had tried to go to the rescue of Meera. Since the body of Meera was
lying in between the two rooms, the possibility of Meera having bolted one
room from inside must be ruled out Search of the three accused was on and
accused Rajinder Lal and Sudha cohld be apprehended on the 23rd but
accused Ashok was absconding and p~esented himself as late as 5th Septern- D
ber, 1974 armed with an anticipatory bail order. He was clearly absconding
and his explanation that he had gone to Allahabad to fetch his pay slip must
be stated to be rejected. One does not absent oneself from duty for more than
one and a half months to fetch a pay slip. A lame and false explanation of
this type only adds a link in the prosecution chain of events. Similarly the E
false explanation of the other two accused that they had not followed Meera
but had come a day before her arrival to see an ailing relative shows their
anxiety to avoid the situation of having followed her for obvious reasons. No
match box was found on the floor but it was found ~urely placed on the
upper 6 feet high slab. Then the statement of acc~d Rajendra Lal to the
police, Kha-1, that Meera was taking her meals at 10.00 p.m. when he retired F
is falsified by the absence of food material in her stomach and small
intestines. These are added circumstances on which the prosecution has jus-
f tifiably relied.

Much was tried to be made of the fact that it was the accused who gave
the alarm of fire and informed the police also which goes to show that they G
did not have a guilty conscience. This submission, however, overlooks the
fact that the apartment was a small two room apartment and with smoke
billowing from the clothes and the body of Meera they were virtually forced
out of the small room occupied by them. It is, therefore, not surprising that
they flung open the door to the verandah and ran out for fresh air shouting
'fire-fire'. It was impossible to keep that information from the neighbours. H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 1 S. C.R.

A The intimation to the police was also to save their skin as they would have
known anyhow since PW 3 had reached the place of occurrence. Therefore, :
the conduct of the three accused persons in not trying to save Meera and in
showing total indifference to her fate which speaks volumes of their culpa-
bility cannot be explained away by the above facts. We, are, therefore, not
impressed by the two submissions made by counsel for the accused perso1as.
B On the other hand, we find that in the background of facts deposed to by PWs
1 and 4 and their subsequent total indifference regar(jing the Meera's fate
certainly betrays a guilty conscience as observed by the Trial Court. So also
we find it difficult to accept. the contention that the accused being highly
educated (so was Meera) would not commit such a gruesome crime. It is
unfortunate that the greed for dowry has been more acute in well to do and
c educa~ed families since it is only people in affluent circumstances who can
meet it We cannot countenance such a submission although that found
favour with the High Court

This Court has, time out of number, observed that while appreciating
circumstantial evidence the Court must adopt a very cautious approach and
D should record a conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete
pointing to the guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is
capable of being negatived on evidence. Great care must be taken in
evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably
capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted.
The circumstance relied upon must be found to have been fully established
E and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent
only with the hypothesis of guilt But this is not to say that the prosecution
must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however far-
fetched and fanciful it might be. Nor does it mean that prosecution evidence
must be rejected on the slightest doubt because the law permits rejection if
the doubt is reasonable and not otherwise. We are also conscious of the fact
F that the presumption of innocence is strengthened, certainly not weakened, by
their acquittal by the High Court and ordinarily this Court is slow to interfere
~
with an order of acquittal in exercise of its exttaordinary powers under '
Section 136 of the Constitution. However, in the present case the facts found I
proved as discussed earlier are (i) the accused were unhappy about the cash
G and articles given by way of dowry at the time of the 'tilak' ceremony (ii)
the accused taunted, tormented and tortured Meera for the insufficiency of
the dowry amount (iii) a few days before the incident while at Banaras there
was a heated argument and then Ashok returned to Lucknow without Meera
(iv)· Meera entreated her father-in-law to permit her to join Ashok but the
laaer refused saying she will have to rot at Banaras alone unless the dowry
H amount was made good (v) ignoring her father-in-law's refusal Meera went

i-
STATE v. A.K. SRIVASTAVA [ AHMADI, J. ] 47

to Lucknow (vi) the two accused Rajendra Lal and Sudha followed her to A
Lucknow (vii) while at Lucknow all the three illtreated her (viii) Meera was
found on fire at about 2.30 or 2.45 a.m. (ix) while she was burning the three
accused who alone were inside came out of the room and stood in the
verandah chit-chatting unconcerned about her plight (x) none of them tried to
help Meera (xi) soon after that the house was locked and the accused could
not be found (xii) while the two accused were apprehended on the 23rd B
Ashok could not be traced till he surrendered on 5th September, 1974, and
(xiii) false explanation or statements were made to explain away their
conduct.

PWs I and 4 had no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons.
The suggestion that they had implicated them at the bt;hest of Inspector, C
Vijay Pratap Singh, is too far-fetched to be accepted. Even according to the
evidence of PW 2, the father of Meera, he did not know them prior to the
incident. This unfortunate father came to the scene of occurrence after he was
informed about the death of his young daughter. He naturally went to the
place of occurrence, contacted the people there and talked to PWs I and 4.
He went back and lodged a complaint, Ext. Ka-1, in which he did mention D
the presence of the house owner though he did not name them. That is quite
natural because he had not enquired of their names having regard to the
strain, stress and tension in which he was at the relevant point of time. We
are afraid the High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that
they had been set up at the behest of Inspector Vijay Pratap Singh who was
their pattidar. We see no reason to disbelieve any part of the version given E
by PWs I and 4 except to say that perhaps the evidence of PW 4 that Meera's
tongue was not protruding when she was removed to the smaller room and
the same was found protruding when she brought back may be an exaggera-
tion based on medical testimony. We, therefore, find it difficult to agree with
the High Court that these two witnesses have been falsely set up at the F
instance of Inspector Vijay Pratap Singh to give false evidence against the
accused persons. So far as the complainant and his son are concerned they
have not tried to exaggerate or introduce false material to support the
prosecution case. Their testimony regarding the quarrels which took place on
account of insufficiency of dowry stanch corroborated by the evidence of
PWs 1 and 4 and can be accepted without hesitation. G

The evidence of PWs 1 and 4 is partly corroborated by PW 3. Imme-
diately after the fire. was noticed and the smoke was seen billowing out,
PW 1 ran to the nearby fire station and called the fire brigade. P.W. 3 arrived
at the scene of occurrence and he too saw the three accused persons standing
in the verandah totally indifferent to what was happening to Meera. He took H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 1 S. C.R.

A the victim Meera on a stretcher to the Hospital. Counsel for the defence bied
to contend that the fact that the accused went to the hospital along with her
is consistent with their innocence. We are afraid we cannot accept this
submission for the simple reason that they had no alternative but to go along
with the fireman since they were asked to do so. It was thereafter that
Ashok's father iodged the repon ExL Kha-1. After the F.I.R. was lodged by
B Meera's father foul play was suspected but by then the accused had lefL The
investigation ultimately led to the anest of the two accused other than Ashok
on the 23rd. Ashok was still untraced and no valid explanation is to be found
for his absence. He secured anticipatory bail and thereaftec surrendered on
5th September, 1974. It would, therefore; appear that he had made himself
scarce for over one and a half months. This is a circumstance which betrays
C guilty conscien~. In addition thereto, a number of circumstances have been
pointed out by the Trial Judge which taken together leave no room for doubt
that the three accused persons were the joint authors of the crime. We have
no hesitation, whatsoever, in concluding that the approach of the High Coun
was wholly against the w•ght of evidence and it is impossible to approve the
same.
D
Ordinarily, in an acquittal this Coun is slow to interfere while exercis-
ing power under Anicle 136 of the Constitution but here we find that the
approach of the High Coun has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. It is
not possible for this Coun to refuse to interfere when a gruesome crime is
committed which has resumd in the extinction of a young mother to be.
E
In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of acquittal
passed by the High Coun and restore the order of conviction and sentence
passed by the Trial CourL The accused will surrender to their bail forthwith.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.