Question

In February 1980, Laxman Kumar married 20-year-old Sudha Goel and they lived in a flat in

Delhi with Laxman’s brothers and their families. On 2 December 1980 Sudha died in hospital due to
burns. Her family filed a case in court. When this case was heard in the Trial Court, four of her
neighbours were called in as witnesses. They stated that on the night of December 1, they had heard
Sudha scream and had forced their way into Laxman’s flat. There they saw Sudha standing with her sari
in flames. They extinguished the fire by wrapping Sudha in a gunny bag and a blanket. Sudha told them
that her mother-inlaw Shakuntala had poured kerosene oil on her and that her husband Laxman had lit the
fire. During the trial, members of Sudha’s family and a neighbour stated that Sudha had been subjected to

torture by her in-laws and that they were demanding more cash, a scooter and a fridge on the birth of the
first child. As part of their defence, Laxman and his mother stated that Sudha’s sari had accidentally
caught fire while she was heating milk. On the basis of this and other evidence, the Trial Court convicted
Laxman, his mother Shakuntala and his brother-in-law Subash Chandra and sentenced all three of them to
death. In November 1983, the three accused went to the High Court to appeal against this verdict of the
Trial Court. The High Court, after hearing the arguments of all the lawyers, decided that Sudha had died
due to an accidental fire caused by the kerosene stove. Laxman, Shakuntala and Subash Chandra were
acquitted.

The above High Court judgment deeply troubled women and they held demonstrations and filed a
separate appeal against this High Court decision in the Supreme Court through the Indian Federation of
Women Lawyers. In 1985, the Supreme Court heard this appeal against the acquittal of Laxman and the
two members of his family. The Supreme Court heard the arguments of the lawyers and reached a
decision that was different from that of the High Court. They found Laxman and his mother guilty but
acquitted the brother-in-law Subash because they did not have enough evidence against him. The
Supreme Court decided to send the accused to prison for life.
a. Keeping the Sudha Goel case in mind, tick the sentences that are true and correct the ones that are false:
(3M)
(i) The accused took the case to the High Court because they were unhappy with the decision of the Trial
Court.
(ii) They went to the High Court after the Supreme Court had given its decision.
(iii) If they do not like the Supreme Court verdict, the accused can go back again to the Trial Court.
b. Write two sentences of what you understand about the appellate system from the given case. (2M)

Answer 1

I) ✓

ii) x

iii)x

b)The answer is following –

The judge has appellate jurisdiction of cases criminal and civil coming up from the lower courts. The appellate court was first constituted in the year of 1891. The judiciary generally consists of a Supreme Court, an Appellate court and a system of minor country and criminal courts

Answer 2

Answer:

true

false

false