), 2010 (70 ) ACC 217 , III (2010 )CCR65 (SC ), 2010 (3 )CGLJ22 , 2010 (2 )CLJ(SC )246 , 2010 CriLJ3419 , II (2010 )DMC153 SC , 2010 (4 )ECrN (NULL ) 1112 , ILR[2010 ]MP1853 , 2010 INSC 323 , JT2010 (8 )SC 228 , 2010 (III )MPJR(SC)216 , 2010 (3 )RCR(Criminal)219 , 2010 (6 )SCALE18 , (2010 )9 SCC73 , ,MANU/SC/0396/2010
Altamas Kabir#H.L. Gokhale#279SC3050Judgment/OrderAIC#Allahabad Criminal Cases#CCR#CGLJ#CLJ#CriLJ#DMC#ECrN#ILR (Madhya Pradesh)#INSC#JT#MANU#MPJR#RCR (Criminal)#SCALE#SCCAltamas Kabir,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Benefit of doubt,Dowry death,Offences Affecting the Human Body,No conviction,Dowry death,Offences Affecting the Human Body,Benefit of doubt,Abetment of suicide,Offences Affecting the Human Body,Demand of dowry,Abetment of suicide,Offences Affecting the Human Body,No conviction,Abetment of suicide,Offences Affecting the Human Body,Sentence,Abetment of suicide,Offences Affecting the Human Body,Presumption as to dowry death,No conviction: offence not proved,Dowry death,Offences Affecting the Human Body,Law of Evidence,Indian Penal Code16344,16129,15715,15716,27049,16588 -->
MANU/SC/0396/2010
True Court CopyTM English
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1081 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5450 of 2009)
Decided On: 14.05.2010
Appellants: Durga Prasad and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of M.P.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Altamas Kabir and H.L. Gokhale JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2009, passed by Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2000, which had been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 498A and Section 304B Indian Penal Code. By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge had sentenced the Appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under Section 498A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of such fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 years. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the High Court was of the view that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and that the appeal, therefore, deserved to be dismissed.
3. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, contended that both the Courts below had erred in convicting the Appellants on the basis of evidence on record. Mr. Gupta submitted that in the absence of any evidence to prove the charges under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, the trial Court, as also the High Court, had erred in merely relying on the presumption available under Section 304B regarding the death of a woman by any burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of her marriage, in coming to a conclusion that there would be a natural inference in such circumstance under Section