Saturday, July 2, 2016

DELAY in COMPLAINT (FIR) - RAMAIAH @ RAMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

                                                                                             REPORTABLE



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1671 OF 2011

RAMAIAH @ RAMA   Versus   STATE OF KARNATAKA 



J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.


It can also be inferred that parties had decided at that time that matter be not reported to the Police and body be cremated. To say it otherwise, by accepting the version of the prosecution, would lead to some absurdities. It would mean that when maternal uncle or aunt as well as mother of Laxmi were present and had seen the dead body lying at the spot, they objected to the body being cremated. They also wanted Police to be informed. If it was so, why they did not put up any resistance? We have to keep in mind that these family members of Laxmi have come out with the allegation that Laxmi was harassed as well as mentally and physically tortured because of non fulfillment of dowry demand. In such a scenario, they would not have remained silent and mute spectators to the events that followed even when they were not to their liking. Not only this conduct belies their version, another weighty factor is that the complainant remained silent about these happenings for a period of 4 days and lodged the report with the Police only on 26.05.1993 when they came out with the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment. (Para 17)

18. We are conscious of the fact that in such cases, sometimes there may be delay in lodging the FIR for various valid reasons. However, it is important that those reasons come on record. There is no explanation worth the name given by the complainant as to why the complainant maintained stoic silence. In this backdrop, the testimony of these witnesses alleging dowry demand has to be tested more stringently and with some caution. On that touchstone, when we analyse the statements, we find the contradictions therein, as pointed out by the learned trial court, become very appealing and meaningful.


26. Let us test the veracity of the version of these persons from another angle. If there was harassment and cruel treatment given to Laxmi by her in-laws, on reaching the place of the accused persons after receiving the unnatural demise of Laxmi, they would have perceived the same to have happen in mysterious circumstances. In such a situation, they would not have kept quite and inform the Police immediately. They would have also insisted on the postmortem of the body of Laxmi to find out the cause of death. That would be the natural reaction of any such persons who believe that their daughter had faced harassment on account of non-fulfillment of the dowry demand and it would be fresh in their mind, if their version is to be believed that just 5 days before the death, Laxmi had complained of the cruel behaviour of her in-laws. No such thing happened, on the contrary, body of Laxmi was cremated in their presence and after performing the last rites, they turned back to their home quietly. It is 4 days thereafter that they thought of lodging the complaint to the Police.

The decision of appellate court (High Court), therefore, is liable to be set aside.” (Para 31)

32. We thus, find that there were no solid and weighty reasons to reverse verdict of acquittal and to convict appellant under the given circumstances. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the appellant is not guilty of the charges foisted against him.

…......................................J. (J. Chelameswar)

…......................................J. (A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi; August 7, 2014.













RAMAIAH @ RAMA V. KARNATAKA

DELAY in COMPLAINT(FIR)

CITATION: (2014) 9 SCC 365

No comments:

Post a Comment