Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Shaik Abdul Khadar vs Shaik Johny Basha on 16 January, 2025
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia, Prashant Kumar Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal Nos. 315-316/2015
SHAIK ABDUL KHADAR … Appellant
VERSUS
SHAIK JOHNY BASHA & ORS. ETC. … Respondents
O R D E R
1. The Appellant before this Court has challenged the order of the
High Court passed in appeal, whereby, the conviction and
sentence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) against Respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein, was set-aside and
they were acquitted for charges under Section 304-B of the IPC.
The High Court also upheld acquittal of respondent nos.5 and 6
herein.
2. Brief facts of this case are that the daughter of Mr Shaik
Abdul Khadar (appellant herein) married Accused No. 1 – husband
on 6th May, 2004. Out of the wedlock they had a one-and-a-half-
year-old son at the time of the incident. In the year 2006, it
has been alleged that the daughter of the appellant was burned
to death by her husband-Accused No. 1, father-in-law-Accused
No. 2, mother-in-law-Accused No. 3 and two brothers of the
husband being A-5 and A-6.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.01.23
3.
16:55:26 IST
Reason: FIR No. 286/2006 was registered at PS Nagarampalem, Guntur and
after investigation the police filed charge-sheet dated
26th February, 2007. The Sessions Court, Guntur, convicted the
2
accused No.1 husband, accused no.2 father-in-law and accused
no.3 mother-in-law under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced
them to life imprisonment, but acquitted the other two accused
persons being Accused Nos.5 and 6.
4. Regarding the acquittal of the brothers of Accused No. 1 i.e.,
accused nos.5 and 6, a revision petition was filed by the
complainant (appellant herein) and at that time, an appeal was
also preferred against conviction by Accused No. 1 to 3, before
the High Court. The High Court in its order dated
14th March, 2013, which has been impugned before this Court, has
come to the conclusion that although the death has taken place
in the matrimonial home of the accused within seven years of
marriage, yet the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (‘Evidence Act’) would not have been
applicable for the reason that the prosecution has not been
able to prove that soon before the death, there was a demand of
any dowry. For this reason, the Court came to the conclusion
that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case and
the offence against the accused persons under Section 304B of
the IPC is not made out since the demand of dowry soon before
the death of the deceased has not been proved by the
prosecution.
5. We have gone through the orders of the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court as well as the evidence placed on record by the
prosecution before the Trial Court, which was also appreciated
by the High Court. There is, in our view, a clear statement
3
given by PW-1 (father of the deceased/appellant herein) under
Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that soon
before the death of his daughter, there was an additional
demand of dowry, although the date and amount has not been
explained.
6. Be that as it may, while deposing before the Court as PW-1, the
appellant in his examination in chief stated that the husband
of the deceased (accused no.1) came to know that the appellant
(his father-in-law) has given dowry of Rs.8 Lakhs to the
husband of the second daughter, at the time of their marriage.
Whereas the dowry amount given by the appellant to accused no.1
was settled at Rs. 5 Lakhs. Hence, Accused No.1 made a further
demand of Rs. 3 Lakhs from the father of the deceased soon
before the death of his wife (daughter of the appellant).
7. There has not been any specific cross examination by the
defence on the above-mentioned aspect and it goes unrebutted.
Moreover, we have also gone through the post mortem report,
which records as under:
Injury No. 1 – Right oblique laceration of
2×1 cm. Muscle deep present over right
temple 1.5 cm behind the outer canthus of
right eye.
Injury No. 2 – Horizontal laceration of 8×2
cm. bone deep, present over right parietal
region of scalp present 2 cm. below the
right parietal eminence.
4
Injury No. 3 – 100% Dermo-Epidermal burns
present all over the body, with peeling of
skin present here and there all over the
body. A heat rupture of 20×6 cm. skin deep,
right obliquely placed present over left
groin, the scalp hair party burnt and
partly signed and completely burnt over the
upper part of the scalp.
8. It is very unusual that there are 100% Dermo-Epidermal burns
present all over the body of the deceased. What is more
alarming is that there is a 8×2 cm. bone deep horizontal
laceration, present over right parietal regions of scalp.
9. Be that as it may, even without going into this aspect, the
fact of the matter is that Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
will come into play once it has been established that there was
a demand of dowry soon before the death of the victim. This
demand has clearly been made out on the part of Accused No. 1-
husband, though there is no evidence that such a demand was
made by the father-in-law and mother-in-law. This evidence is
only there against the husband of the deceased.
10. Under these circumstances, we partly allow the appeals and
set-aside the order of acquittal as regards Accused No. 1-
husband, and upheld the order of the trial court against him.
5
The Accused No. 1-husband is hereby convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The
acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 being the father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the deceased, is not being interfered with.
Considering the fact that the incident itself has taken place
almost 20 years back and the deceased, at that relevant point
of time, had a one-and-a-half year old son, (though he is an
adult by now), and other mitigating circumstances, we find it
appropriate to reduce the sentence to 7 years under Section
304-B of the Indian Penal Code, as regards the Accused No. 1-
husband (Shaik Johny Basha), which is the minimum sentence
under the said provision. The Accused No. 1-husband is
directed to surrender within four weeks from the date of this
order and carry out the remaining part of the sentence.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………. J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………………………………………………………. J.
[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]
New Delhi;
January 16, 2025
6
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.13 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal Nos. 315-316/2015
SHAIK ABDUL KHADAR … Appellant
VERSUS
SHAIK JOHNY BASHA & ORS. ETC. … Respondents
Date : 16-01-2025 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAFor Appellant(s):
Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR
Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, AOR
Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR
Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Gowtham Polanki, Adv.
Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RThe criminal appeals are partly allowed, in terms of the
signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(MANISH ISSRANI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
AR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
[ad_1]
Source link