Case Brief: GuruCharan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement: 8th January, 2003
Deciding Authority: Justice N. Santosh Hegde; Justice B.P.Singh
Facts of the Case: Deceased Geetu was married at Yamunanagar. After the marriage she started residing with her husband and his parents at Sriganganagar. Only 2-1/2 months later, Geetu committed suicide by hanging. After the cremation of her body , Ved Prakash, father of Geetu drafted an F.I.R., and lodged the same at police station, Sadar, Sriganganagar . In the FIR the father stated her husband tortured Geetu of not bringing enough dowry. After investigation the appellants herein who are the parents of Parvin Kumar, the husband of the deceased, along with Parvin Kumar were put up for trial before the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.40 of 1991, charged of offences under Sections 304 B and 306 I.P.C.. By judgment and order dated 16th May, 1992 the trial court found them guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304 B and 306 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo 7 years simple imprisonment under Section 304 B I.P.C. and 5 years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The appeal preferred by the appellants and Parvin Kumar (husband of the deceased) was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment and order dated 21st March, 1996. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by Gurucharan Kumar and Smt. Sudesh, the parents of Parvin Kumar only. We were informed that Parvin Kumar has not preferred an appeal to this Court since he had already undergone the entire sentence.
Judgement: In the course of further investigation it was found that the deceased left a suicide note. In the said note also there is no statement to the effect that she was committing suicide because she had been harassed or tortured by her husband or her in-laws or that she was compelled to end her life because she was being constantly taunted for having not got a car in dowry. In fact the note says that no one was responsible for what she was doing, and that what she was doing was entirely of her own will. It was sought to be argued before us by counsel for the State that the said suicide note only indicates that she was committing suicide voluntarily, and did not amount to the exoneration of the accused. That may be one way of reading the suicide note, but it is equally possible to read the suicide note to mean that she was entirely responsible for what she was doing and no one else was to blame. The suicide note does not contain any statement which can be used against the accused, as there is nothing in the suicide note which may even remotely suggest that she was ending her life because of the mal-treatment meted out to her by the members of her matrimonial family. The Supreme Court after further findings held that the letters noticed are substantially contemporaneous, written at a time when it is alleged she was being subjected to cruelty at the hands of her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law. Rather than supporting the case of the prosecution, these letters support the case of the defence that so far as they were concerned they had showered love and affection on Geetu and not subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry.
This Court has laid down judicious principle that even in a case where one of the accused has not preferred an appeal, or even if his Special Leave Petition is dismissed, in case relief is granted to the remaining accused and the case of the accused, who has either not appealed or whose Special Leave Petition has been dismissed, stands on the same footing, he should not be denied the benefit which is extended to the other accused. This has been held in Harbans Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1982) 2 SCC 101, Raja Ram & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (1994) 2 SCC 568, Dandu Lakshmi Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 69 and Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed Vs. State of Maharashtra JT 2002 (2) SC 158.
In the instant case we find that the case of Parvin Kumar, who has not filed an appeal, is not distinguishable from the case of the appellants. Since we have acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them, we also set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the said Parvin Kumar and acquit him of the charges levelled against him. This appeal is accordingly allowed.