11 February 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Dowry death >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India recently in the case of State of Uttarakhand Vs Sanjay Ram Tamta, Sanu, Prem Prakash, upheld the acquittal of a husband charged under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for dowry death, citing a lack of credible evidence to prove the essential ingredient of dowry demand. The case highlights the need for careful scrutiny of allegations in dowry death cases, particularly given the potential for such accusations to arise from the grief and despair surrounding a young bride's untimely death.

The case involved a woman who died by hanging within six months of her marriage. Her father and brother, upon discovering her body, filed an FIR accusing her husband and his family of dowry demands and harassment. While the husband was initially convicted by the Trial Court, primarily based on unexplained scratches on the deceased's body, the High Court overturned the conviction, finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged dowry demand.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the established principle that appellate courts are generally reluctant to reverse acquittals, particularly when the presumption of innocence is reinforced by the acquittal itself. Reversal is warranted only when the findings are perverse, material evidence has been misread or omitted, and no reasonable view other than guilt is possible.

The Court meticulously examined the evidence presented at trial. The prosecution's case rested heavily on the testimony of the deceased's brother, father, and sister. However, the Court noted significant inconsistencies between their initial statements to the police under Section 161 CrPC and their subsequent depositions in court. Crucially, the father and brother did not mention any specific dowry demands in their initial statements, a crucial omission that significantly weakened the prosecution's case. Furthermore, while they later alleged physical violence, this was also absent from their initial statements and no independent witnesses corroborated these claims.

The Court also pointed out the improbability of the alleged dowry demand, considering the financial and social circumstances of both families. The father of the deceased admitted that his son-in-law was aware of his financial limitations, making the alleged demand for ?4,00,000 and a plot of land seem unlikely.

The Supreme Court reiterated the essential ingredients for an offense under Section 304B IPC, as established in Surender Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. These include: (i) the woman's death being caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) the death occurring within seven years of marriage; (iii) the woman being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives soon before her death; and (iv) the cruelty or harassment being connected to a demand for dowry. The absence of any of these ingredients negates the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

In this case, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the crucial element of dowry demand. The inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies, particularly the omission of dowry allegations in their initial statements to the police, cast serious doubt on the prosecution's narrative. The testimony of the landlord, who turned hostile and denied any knowledge of dowry demands or harassment, further weakened the prosecution's case. The Court also noted the absence of any corroborating evidence from neighbors or other witnesses regarding the alleged harassment or dowry demands.

The Supreme Court, relying on the principle established in Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab regarding the significance of omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements, concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand for dowry beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's order of acquittal, although for different reasons than those given by the High Court. The Court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing such cases carefully and ensuring that convictions under Section 304B are based on credible evidence of dowry demand and related harassment.

Section 304B., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act - 1872  

Indian Evidence Act, 1872