Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Judgment

    Uploaded by

    smart prabhu
    The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal regarding the death of Sulekha Dalai. [1] Sulekha's brother alleged she was murdered by her husband and in-laws for dowry. [2] While police initially investigated the case as murder, the medical examiner later deemed the cause of death as suicide. [3] The Court directed the Sessions Court to reconsider framing additional charges of murder against the accused based on the evidence. [4] However, the Court did not make a determination on the merits of the case. [5] The appeal was disposed accordingly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Judgment

    Uploaded by

    smart prabhu
    16 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal regarding the death of Sulekha Dalai. [1] Sulekha's brother alleged she was murdered by her husband and in-laws for dowry. [2] While police initially investigated the case as murder, the medical examiner later deemed the cause of death as suicide. [3] The Court directed the Sessions Court to reconsider framing additional charges of murder against the accused based on the evidence. [4] However, the Court did not make a determination on the merits of the case. [5] The appeal was disposed accordingly.

    Original Title

    44757

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal regarding the death of Sulekha Dalai. [1] Sulekha's brother alleged she was murdered by her husband and in-laws for dowry. [2] While police initially investigated the case as murder, the medical examiner later deemed the cause of death as suicide. [3] The Court directed the Sessions Court to reconsider framing additional charges of murder against the accused based on the evidence. [4] However, the Court did not make a determination on the merits of the case. [5] The appeal was disposed accordingly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    16 views3 pages

    Judgment

    Uploaded by

    smart prabhu
    The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal regarding the death of Sulekha Dalai. [1] Sulekha's brother alleged she was murdered by her husband and in-laws for dowry. [2] While police initially investigated the case as murder, the medical examiner later deemed the cause of death as suicide. [3] The Court directed the Sessions Court to reconsider framing additional charges of murder against the accused based on the evidence. [4] However, the Court did not make a determination on the merits of the case. [5] The appeal was disposed accordingly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON


    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 665 OF 2017
    (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.1570 of 2017)

    SARADA PRASANNA DALAI …APPELLANT

    VERSUS

    INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,


    CRIME BRANCH, ODISHA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

    ORDER

    S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.

    1 Leave granted.

    2 The appellant is the brother of deceased Sulekha Dalai.

    Sulekha Dalai was married to Trilochan Rout on 4 th June, 2008.

    According to the appellant, at the time of marriage, dowry in the

    form of cash of Rs.1,50,000/-, 20 tola gold ornaments, TV and

    washing machine was given to the three accused persons as per

    their demand and that certain additional sums have also been given

    through the deceased. It was contended that the accused have

    murdered the deceased. Therefore, he lodged a complaint against

    the accused persons and First Information Report at Talcher Police

    Page 1
    Station was registered against them under Sections 498A, 302,

    304B, 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It

    was further contended that after scientific investigation, the cause

    of death was recorded as ante mortem hanging and that ligature

    mark found on the body of deceased was not possible by the seized

    sari. However, after five days of the registration of the case, the I.O.

    made a query seeking clarification whether the hanging was

    suicidal or homicidal in nature and the medical officers, who had

    conducted the post mortem, opined the hanging to be suicidal

    hanging. After investigation, charge sheet dated 4 th June, 2011 was

    submitted against the accused under Sections 498A, 306, 304B

    read with 34 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

    The I.O. dropped charges against the accused under Section 302 of

    the IPC. Therefore, the appellant filed a writ petition being WP (Crl.)

    No.1131 of 2012 before the High Court of Orissa for a direction for

    reopening the case and to hand over further investigation to the

    Crime Branch or the CBI. The High Court dismissed the writ

    petition on 29th February, 2016 by holding that further investigation

    into the case is unnecessary. The appellant has challenged the

    legality and correctness of the said order in this appeal.

    Page 2
    3 The appellant contends that sufficient material is available on

    record for framing an additional charge for the offence punishable

    under Section 302 IPC.

    4 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the

    view that it is just and proper for the Sessions Court before whom

    the case is pending to consider framing of an additional charge

    under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, the Sessions Court is

    directed to peruse the entire material on record in order to consider

    the aspect of framing of an additional charge for the offence

    punishable under Section 302 IPC. However, this shall not be

    construed as our opinion on merits of the case.

    5 The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

    …………………………………J.
    (J. CHELAMESWAR)

    …………………………………J.
    (S. ABDUL NAZEER)
    New Delhi;
    April 10, 2017.

    Page 3

    You might also like