“Testimonies Appeared To Be Gimmick, Not Honest Contradiction”: Supreme Court Acquits Father-In-Law In Case U/S 498A IPC
The Bench noted the improved testimonies regarding dowry demands, which were absent in initial police statements, cannot form the basis of conviction.
Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice N.V. Anjaria, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a father-in-law under Section 498A IPC, holding that the prosecution evidence consisting of material improvements and "afterthought" testimonies failed the test of reliability. The Court noted that while Section 498A is a vital tool for the safety of women, it must not be misused to rope in all family members in the absence of specific, attributable roles.
The Bench further clarified that when two contradictory dying declarations exist, the version that appears free from tutoring and influence must be preferred. In this instance, the Court found the deceased's second declaration, attributing her injuries to suicide, to be more believable than the first declaration, which the Court suspected was recorded after the victim was tutored by interested parties.
Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed, “…the factum of dowry demand does not find presence in any of the testimonies of the family of the deceased. It appears that the same was added in their examination in chief as an afterthought so that they could strengthen their case against husband and his family members which was standing on shaky legs due to insufficiency of evidence. It appears to be a legal gimmick rather than an honest contradiction caused due to lapse of time and erosion of the memory, because a fact as important as demand of dowry that was so traumatic so as to lead to a death of a young lady could not have been left out of the statement under Section 161 before the police at the first blush…”.
Parijat Sinha, AOR appeared for the appellant and Advocate Rajat Kumar appeared for the respondent.
The deceased married the appellant’s son on July 12, 2000 and within nine months of the marriage, on April 15, 2001, she sustained 55% burn injuries in her matrimonial home and succumbed to them on April 22, 2001.
The prosecution alleged that the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law had set her on fire following unmet demands for a Maruti car. Two dying declarations were recorded: the first implicated the in-laws in murder, while the second stated she had set herself on fire due to domestic quarrels over dowry.
The Additional Sessions Judge originally convicted the three accused under Sections 498A and 302/34 IPC, while acquitting them of Section 304B.
On appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the murder convictions but upheld the conviction under Section 498A, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court against the Section 498A conviction, while the State and the deceased's brother appealed against the acquittal for murder.
Therefore, now the Court noted significant contradictions between the family's testimonies in court and their statements recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC. Specifically, the allegations of dowry demands and torture were missing from the initial police statements.
Furthermore, the Executive Magistrate (PW-18) admitted that persons present at the hospital had told the deceased to depose in a certain way, casting a shadow on the first dying declaration.
“…the family of the deceased would have been so eager as to visit punishment upon the husband and the in-laws that they would have narrated the entire ordeal to the police in order to avoid any legal discrepancies later on. This does not seem to be the case at hand for the simple reason that when questioned in the cross-examination about the reason of this omission, all the family members of the deceased categorically pinned the blame on the police for the non-recording of the statement. Further, not a single independent witness could depose anything pertaining to the demand of dowry. In such a scenario it becomes unsafe for the Court to rely on contradictory statements of the interested witnesses to visit punishment upon the husband or the in-laws. For this reason, we are of the opinion that the demand of dowry was not proved”, the Bench observed.
“…It appears that the testimonies rendered before the Court were an afterthought, as the same improvements appear across the statements of all the witnesses, with a jarring accuracy which was hitherto missing in the statements recorded before the Police. Another reason why the testimonies are doubtful is that apart from the family members, there is not a single witness who can corroborate the version of the prosecution…”, the Bench had noted.
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the conviction under Section 498A IPC, and consequently, the appeals filed by the State and the brother of the deceased, challenging the acquittals under Section 302 IPC were dismissed.
Cause Title: Narendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 302 OF 2014
Appearances:
Appellant: Parijat Sinha, AOR, Divyam Dhyani, Shaurya Nagpal, Reshmi Rea Sinha, Rudra Dutta, Priyal Jain, Alok Bhatt, Advocates.
Respondent: Rajeev Kumar Bansal, AOR, Kshitij Singh, Parvinder, Shefali Jain, Kavita Singh, Rajat Kumar, Mahendra Kumar Jain, Devesh Kumar, Vidya Sagar, Advocates, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR.