SUPREME COURT: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 and Sec. 304B read with Sec. 34 — Appeal against conviction — Demand of dowry — Cruelty — the first accused used to treat his wife with cruelty on account of dowry demand. The same allegation was made against his father — Second accused — Also alleged that his father wanted to fulfil his lust with his daughter-in-law. She did not agree — Accused tortured her and gave her beating—The daughter-in-law committed suicide by burning herself—held— High Court was in clear error in taking into consideration the evidence relating to harassment by the second accused on the basis that he, in the state of intoxication, asked her to sleep with him, and on that basis, she was subjected to mental cruelty — Said evidence is totally irrelevant and foreign to the scope of a trial for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC. It does not relate, at all, to the demand for dowry — The demand for dowry — State of the evidence — there was no occasion for the High Court to even raise a presumption that the deceased in this case has been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry — It may be true and it is not disputed by appellants that as found by the High Court, the deceased died in the house of the accused— High Court proceeded to arrive at finding of guilt in an appeal against acquittal by the Trial Court in the state of the evidence, which we have referred to, does not commend itself to us for acceptance — The High Court overstepped its limits in dealing with an appeal against acquittal and the view taken by the Trial Court appears to have arrived at, having regard to the state of evidence, to be a possible one, which did not merit interference by the Appellate Court
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
2019 IX AD (S.C.) 369 Girish Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand