MATS LAW SCHOOL,

Mats University, Raipur

LAW OF EVIDENCE
CASE STUDY

SUBMITTED TOASST. Professor Pankaj Umbarkar

Faculty of Law
Mats Law School

SUBMITTED BYAMAN GYAN DAS

B.A, L.L.B (Hons.)
SEMESTER- VI
MU12BALLB008

1. Vineet suri v State (2014)

Fact of the case:
The deceased, Madhu Bala and the appellant were both divorcees and had an
arranged marriage on 17.11.1993. The family of the appellant comprised of his
mother, Smt. Darshana Suri, brother, Shri Sumeet Suri and sister-in-law, Smt. Aarti
Suri. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was found dead at her matrimonial
home on 19.07.1996, which was within seven years of her marriage and her death
had taken place under unnatural circumstances. The present case came to be
registered on the statement made by Shri Hari Chand Chhabra (father of the
deceased) on 19.07.1996 itself. Initially, charge for the offence under Section 498A
read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellant herein, his mother,
brother and sister-in-law and charge for the offence under Section 304B read with
Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC was framed against the appellant and his
mother. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the deceaseds mother had filed a
revision petition in the High Court. Vide order dated 09.12.1999, the revision
petition was allowed and it was directed that charge for the offence under Section
302/34 IPC should also be framed against the accused. Resultantly, vide order
dated 11.09.2000, charge for the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34
IPC and in the alternative, charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with
Section 34 IPC was framed against all the four accused persons. After they had
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, the prosecution had examined twenty two
witnesses to prove its case. The material witnesses included Praveen Kumar
Chhabra and Dalip Kumar Chhabra, both brothers of the deceased , Smt. Anita
Chhabra, sister , Smt. Sushila Devi, mother of the deceased (PWIssue of the case:
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the deceaseds mother had filed a revision
petition in the High Court. the revision petition was allowed and it was directed
that charge for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC should also be framed against
the accused.

Judgment of the case:

The court held him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and
306 IPC, while acquitting him of the offences under Sections 302 & 304B read
with Section 34 IPC. By the impugned order on sentence, the appellant has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a
fine of `5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for
six months for the offence under Section 498A IPC and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years with a fine of `15,000/-, in default of payment of fine,
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months for the offence under
Section 306 IPC.
2. Md.khaili v State of Bihar (2002)
Fact of the case:
Kalyani Panda and Anima Panda, the wife and daughter respectively of the
informant used to work as female labourer a year ago in the Gangotri Construction
in village Bhatia Bastee and appellant-Md. Khalil used to work as a petty
contractor for doing mosaic work in the said construction and he used to vex and
tease Anima Panda and on getting information in respect thereof he disallowed his
wife and daughter to work there as female labourer. It is alleged that on 20-6-1988
when the informant and his wife returned to his house he did not find Anima in his
house. On enquiry, the informant came to know that appellant-Md. Khalil along
with acquitted co-accused Md. Akhtar had kidnapped Anima Panda after inducingher.
Issue of the case:
It is alleged that on 20-6-1988 when the informant and his wife returned to
his house he did not find Anima in his house.
It is also alleged that Anima is aged about 14 years and she is a minor. It has
also been alleged that delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been due to the time
consumed in making enquiry and search about the whereabouts of Anima
Panda.
Judgment of the case:

The charge framed against the appellant is in respect of the first part of Section
366, I.P.C. and no charge has been framed against the appellant in respect of the
second part of the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. According to Additional
Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 387 of 1989 whereby the sole appellant
was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366, I.P.C. and he was
convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years. However, the appellant was
acquitted under Section 376, I.P.C. and co-accused-Md. Akhtar was also acquitted
for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C.

3. Omprakash v State of U.P. (2006)

Fact of the case:
One day prior to the occurrence i.e. 9.3.1985 the police of Sursa arrested Ram
Saran, husband of the informant (PW-1) and the challan was brought to the
concerned Court on the day of the occurrence. Om Prakash @ Chhotey (hereinafter
referred to as the 'accused') who was related to the parents of the informant, met
then in the Court premises. Jaipal (PW-2) brother of Ram Saran was also there
along with the informant and she was talking to him about bail of her husband.
After sometime, accused Om Prakash sent PW-2 to find out whether the challan
had come or not. Then at about 3.00 p.m. accused overpowered the informant and
he started raping her in the veranda of Zila Parishad near the Court. When the
informant raised alarm, PW-2 and one Ram Lal came there and they assaulted Om
Prakash who was raping her and they apprehended him and the accused was taken
to the police station. The informant gave oral information and then Chik number
126 Exhibit A-1 was recorded and the entry was made in the general diary and the
case was registered. Internal examination of the body of the informant was done by
Dr. Purnima Srivastava (PW-3) and the medical report is Exhibit A-2 and the
supplementary report is Exhibit A-3. The medical examination of the accused was
done by Dr. P.K. Gangwar (PW-4) and the report is Exhibit A-4. The underwear of
accused was seized in the police station and the seizure memo is Exhibit A-6 and
the petticoat of the informant was seized and the seizure memo is Exhibit A-7. The
charge of investigation of the case was given to Shri Mahesh Lal Vadhuria (PW-6),
who prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence (Exhibit A-8). The underwear
4

of the accused and the petticoat of Ramwati were sent for chemical examination
and the report is Exhibit A-21. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed against the accused and cognizance of the offence was taken and thereafter
the case was committed to the Sessions Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hardoi.
Issue of the case:
The accused did not admit the charge and demanded trial. The accused also alleged
that he was implicated due to the enmity.
Judgment of the case:
The Trial Court held that the accusations have been established. Taking note of the
evidence of PW-3, it was held that accused must have known, and that there is full
possibility that victim is pregnant. Accordingly, by applying the provisions of
Section 376(2)(e) accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years
which is the minimum sentence prescribed. The Trial Court held that there was no
reason to reduce the minimum prescribed sentence.
In appeal before the High Court it was submitted that the prosecution version is
incredible and the trial Court should not have convicted the accused. The High
Court by the impugned judgment affirmed the conviction and sentence. It noted
that the FIR was lodged immediately, without any delay. The evidence of the
victim was credible and cogent. That itself was sufficient to record conviction. In
addition was the evidence of PW-2 an eye-witness. It was, therefore, held that the
prosecution has clearly established that the offence was committed by the accused.
With reference to the background facts, it was noted that the accused was in a
position to dominate will of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the conviction as recorded
was maintained and the appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion:
5

Of late, crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It
is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show
little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of
indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of
sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy
and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as
physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault -- it is often
destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical
body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The
Court, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges
of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity.

4.State of Maharashtra v Rajendra jawnmal Gandhi (1997)

Fact of the case:
A student of 4th class, had gone for tuition at 8.15 A.M. on September 24, 1986 to
a private teacher in the colony where she was living with her parents. After her
private tuition which was from 8.15 a.m. to 9.15 a.m. she was coming back to her
home and then go to school with other children in a cycle rickshaw hired for the
purpose. When the prosecutrix was going on the colony road at the intersection of
this road and a bye-lane, which was a secluded spot, the accused caught-hold of
her on the pretext that her assistance was required for pulling either the pipe or the
wires in the Maruti car which was standing there. The girl was pushed inside the
car. At that time she was wearing a midi-frock and a nicker. The accused pulled
down her nicker and laid her on the seat in the car. She did try to resist by saying
that she should be allowed to go and that she would be late in reaching home. The
accused then opened the zip of his pant and started pressing his penis on her
private part. When the girl cried that she would be late in reaching home, the
accused said `wait', `one second'. According to her, thereafter the accused urinated.
She felt wetness on her private part. After the girl was released she came home
weeping. She embrached her father and narrated the whole incident to him. The
parents of the girl examined her private part and the garments and noticed the

sticky substance (semen) on some part of the midi-frock as well as on the nicker.
There was redness on her private part. The girl described the person who
committed such bashful act on her. Shrikant Deshpande, the father of the girl, took
her on his scooter and came to the spot where the incident took place but there was
no body. They returned home. The mother of the girl gave her bath and she went to
her school as usual. Deshpande, however, did not stop at that and he made more
enquiries. He went to the sport again and there then he was told by Vishakha
Kulkarni, a college student, who was living in the vicinity that a Maruti Car of
chocolate colour was seen there which bore registration No. MGR-942. Deshpande
went to RTO and came to know that the car was registered in name of Parashuram
Jadhav. Thereafter he me Meena Bornvankar, Additional S.P. who at the relevant
time was holding the charge of S.P. Kolhapur. She sent him to the police station to
lodge of formal complaint. Parashuram Jadhav was traced. From his interrogation,
it transpired that the Maruti car had been sold by him and further investigation
revealed that at the relevant time it was in the possession of the accused.
Issue of the case:
The accused appealed to the Bombay High Court against his conviction and
sentence. A Division Bench of the High Court by judgment convicted him under
the offence.
Judgment of the case:
The court convicted the accused under Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act and
upset the conviction under Section 376 IPC and instead convicted him for an
offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment
which he had already undergone (which was 33 days in all) and to pay fine of
Rs.40,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months. It was ordered that our of the fine so
realised, a sum of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to the complaint who was father of the
girl. For an offence under Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, sentence was
reduced to imprisonment already undergone and the accused not required to
undergo any separate imprisonment for this offence. The Maruti Car was ordered
to be returned to the accused and the order of forfeiture and confiscation was set
aside.
7

5. Bhoora Singh v state (1992)

Fact of the case:
Smt. Urmila, a youthful wife of 20 years of appellant Raju, residing with her
parents in village Bhadwa, P. S. Malwan, distl. Fatehpur, married in 1983, was
brought to the district hospital Fatehpur on 11-10-1986 at about 3-05 p.m. by
Raju's cousin Vijai Bahadur Singh with extensive burn injuries. She was admitted
and medically examined by Dr. Harish Chandra (P.W. 5) wherein she died at 5-35
p.m. Her mother Smt. Sankatha Devi (P.W. 3) had reached the hospital soon after
her hospitalisation but her father Yadunath Singh had reached the hospital after her
death, having come from Allahabad where he was posted as Station Officer, P.S.
Mohabbatpur Pansa. The doctor had sent to police Station Kotwali, Fatehpur, a
memorandum of Ex.Ka-6 about admission of Smt. Urmila in a seriously burnt
condition. After her death, another memo (Ex.Ka-8) was sent intimating her death.
An inquest (Panchnama) was done on the dead body of Urmila by Sub-Inspector
Sivali Misra. Thereafter post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. B. N. Deo
at 2-30 p.m. in the presence of another Medical Officer while the body had reached
the mortuary at 11-30 a.m. on 12-10-1986. The FIR lodged at P. S. Kotwali by P.W.
1 Yadunath Singh was forwarded to P.S. Malwan where S.C. Dube, head moharrir
made necessary entries whereafter Vijai Kumar Sharma, S.O., P.S. Malwan had
begun investigation and writing the case diary but the investigations were taken
over by the Circle Officer D.S. Yadav, Dy. S.P. On 14-10-1986 he had gone to the
site and got the site plan prepared. He found pieces of Sarhi and one empty glass of
kerosene oil and ashes in the oven. He had recorded the statements of Smt. Sukhia
and Chanda Devi. In her statement Smt. Sukhiya had told him that she was
cleaning her own house when she heard Smt. Urmila "Bachao, Bachao" and she
had come up to the door in a burnt condition. In the charge-sheet submitted by D.S.
Yadav, all the accused were shown as absonden, as proceedings under Section
82/83, Cr. P.C. had begun against them and the I.O. had shown Raju alias
Raghuvendra, husband of Smt. Urmila, Smt. Gulhari Devi alias Champa Devi,
mother of Raju, Bhoora Singh, father of Raju and co-accused Km. Aruna Devi,
sister of Raju as being prosecuted Under Sections 302, 304B, 498A, IPC and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
8

Issue of the case:

Raju alias Raghvendra Pratap Singh the husband, and Smt. Gulhari, mother-in-law
of deceased Smt. Urmila have also preferred appeal against convicting the
appellant Bhoora Singh under Section 498A, I.P.C. and sentencing him to 3 years
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and further convicting him under Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing him to imprisonment for 6 months and a
fine of Rs. 500
Judgment of the case:
The Sessions Judge because of death sentence having been awarded to Raju and
Smt. Gulhari. It may be stated here that about the death sentence being reduced to
imprisonment for life, even Hon. Mr. Justice B.L. Yadav has expressed a contrary
opinion and has awarded imprisonment for life to them. The other sentences have
been upheld by him. Hon. Dr. Justice J. N. Dubey has doubted the entire
prosecution case and has, therefore, allowed the appeals.
Conclusion:
What should be the conclusion of the aforesaid discussion is a point which has
bothered this Court sufficiently. One would have been so happy if the presumption
under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act could be brought in aid to a charge
under Section 302, I.P.C. but one would have been still happier if on the facts of
this case the appellants could have been convicted under Section 304B, I.P.C. But,
alas, there will be no gainsaying in recording a finding that all the three appellants
Bhoora Singh, Raju alias Raghuvendra Pratap and Smt. Gulhari are guilty under
Section 304B, I.P.C. because neither can they be convicted nor sentenced
thereunder as the said section was brought into the statute book on 19-11-1986
whereas the tragic extinction of life of the youthful lady Smt. Urmila under
unnatural circumstances happened on 11-10-19861 The appellants, therefore, go
scot-free regarding the charge under Section 304B, I.P.C. by as insignificant .