Conviction Based Solely On Parental Statements Unsustainable: Calcutta High Court Acquits Husband In 2002 Dowry Death Case
The High Court held that in the absence of a valid dying declaration and in view of inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, a conviction under Section 498A IPC cannot be sustained where the case is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court has held that a conviction for cruelty in a dowry death case cannot be sustained solely based on alleged statements made by the deceased to her parents when such statements do not satisfy the legal requirements of a dying declaration and the prosecution otherwise fails to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the husband challenging his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Court in a case arising out of alleged dowry-related cruelty leading to the suicide of his wife.
A Bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das observed: “this Court is unable to conquer with the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court, which order was passed solely on the basis of the statement made by the victim to the parents treated to be a dying declaration of the victim that she committed suicide for torture inflicted by the appellant, without considering the testimony of the mother that excepting the word ‘I will be dead” she could not utter any other word. So there was no dying declaration by the victim, which may be considered as the basis for passing any order of conviction when otherwise the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt”.
Advocate Manasi Roy appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Debasish Roy, along with Advocate Anusuya Sinha, represented the State.
Background
The case arose from a complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased alleging that the victim had committed suicide by consuming poison, allegedly due to physical and mental torture inflicted by her husband on account of dowry demands. The prosecution had invoked Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
It was contended by the appellant that the marriage had subsisted for several years and that the deceased had never raised any complaint of torture. It was further contended that the prosecution's evidence was vague, inconsistent, and unsupported by independent witnesses, and that the conviction under Section 498A was unsustainable, particularly when the trial court itself had acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304B IPC.
The State contended that the evidence of the parents and other witnesses established cruelty and harassment, and that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant under Section 498A IPC based on the material on record.
Court’s Observation
The Court undertook a detailed scrutiny of the evidence on record. It noted that the prosecution had primarily relied upon the testimonies of the parents and relatives of the deceased, with no independent witness supporting the allegations.
The Court found that the brother of the deceased did not allege any specific instance of cruelty and, in fact, admitted that the appellant generally behaved properly with the victim. It also noted that no prior complaint had been lodged alleging a demand for dowry or harassment.
The Court further found that the evidence of the father regarding alleged torture was vague and lacking in particulars, as no specific dates or instances were provided. It also noted that the alleged payment of money was made to the brother of the appellant for medical purposes and not directly demanded by the appellant.
Significantly, the Court found serious inconsistencies in the testimony of the mother, who claimed that the victim had informed her about torture, but also admitted that the complaint was lodged out of a grudge after the death of her daughter. The Court noted: “excepting ‘I will be dead’ she could not utter any other word.”
The Court held that such a statement could not be treated as a dying declaration capable of forming the sole basis of conviction. It was observed that the trial court erred in treating the alleged statement as a dying declaration without considering the full testimony of the witness.
The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to establish essential elements of cruelty under Section 498A IPC, particularly in light of the acquittal under Section 304B IPC, which negated the allegation of dowry-related harassment.
The Court further observed that there was no material to show that the alleged conduct of the appellant was of such a nature as would drive the victim to commit suicide. It emphasised that criminal law cannot be invoked based on vague and uncorroborated allegations.
Referring to Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Court reiterated that courts must exercise caution in matrimonial disputes, where there is a tendency to implicate the husband and his relatives without sufficient evidence.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 498A IPC beyond a reasonable doubt and that the conviction was unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction, and directed that the appellant be released from his bail bond.
Cause Title: Boren Mondal v. The State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:483)
