Conviction Based On Hearsay And Photocopies Set Aside | Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Accused In Dowry Case Under Sections 3 And 4 Of Dowry Prohibition Act
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Uttarakhand Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit allowed a criminal appeal and set aside the conviction of two appellants who had been sentenced under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on hearsay evidence and unauthenticated photocopies of letters allegedly written by the deceased. It directed that the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court be quashed, and the appellants, who were on bail, need not surrender. The sureties were also ordered to be discharged.
The case concerned the tragic death of Smt. Kanchan Gupta, who was married to appellant no. 1, Dr. Ram Shankar Gupta, on 02.05.1993. The informant, Alok Kumar Gupta, alleged that she died under suspicious circumstances on 19.10.1993 due to dowry-related harassment. It was claimed that her in-laws demanded cash, a scooter, a fridge, and gold ornaments, and her death was not accidental but a result of failure to meet these demands.
The initial investigation led to a charge-sheet, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 17.01.1997. The learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, framed charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, which were explained to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW1 Alok Kumar Gupta, cousin of the deceased and the informant, stated that he arranged the marriage and supported the deceased, as she had no father or real brother. He alleged that her in-laws were unsatisfied with the dowry provided and produced Photostat copies of letters purportedly written by the deceased about the dowry demands. However, he admitted in cross-examination that he had not mentioned specific dowry items in his police statement and had never visited the deceased at her matrimonial home.
PW2, Madhu Gupta, elder sister of the deceased, supported the prosecution's version, stating that the deceased's in-laws continued to demand dowry even after the marriage. She also admitted in cross-examination that she never informed the investigating officer about specific post-marriage dowry demands and had not visited the matrimonial home.
PW3, Ashok Kumar Gupta, another cousin, testified that items like Rs. 51,000 cash, a gold ring, a chain, a fridge, and a VCR were demanded. He asserted that even after fulfilling these demands, the in-laws were unsatisfied. He also referred to letters written by the deceased and stated they were given to the investigating officer. In cross-examination, he acknowledged that the deceased had gone on a honeymoon and that the letters were written before her death. He too had never visited the matrimonial home.
PW4, Shiv Kumar Gupta, also a cousin, held similar claims and admitted he never visited the deceased's matrimonial home.
Medical evidence was provided by PW5 and PW7, both medical officers. PW5 conducted the post-mortem and attributed the cause of death to burn injuries, explaining that cut marks could be attributed to attempts to save her. PW6, the Investigating Officer, admitted that he began the investigation after a delay of over 1.5 years. He confirmed that the throat injuries were consistent with medical intervention.
The defence argued that the deceased died accidentally due to burn injuries while cooking, and appellant no. 1 attempted to save her. It was also submitted that the in-laws informed the deceased's family immediately and conducted last rites with their consent. A dying declaration recorded by the S.D.M. supported the claim of accidental death.
Appellants argued that they were acquitted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC but were convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act without being charged under those provisions or being given an opportunity to defend themselves accordingly. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Kalicharan & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 583.
The court addressed the appellant's contention about the lack of charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It recorded, "the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants regarding failure of justice for not framing the charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before conviction cannot be accepted."
Justice Purohit cited Section 222 Cr.P.C., stating, "As Section 222 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to convict a person for minor offences even if he is not initially charged under them... the learned court below has committed no irregularity in convicting the accused for minor offences."
The judgment further recorded, "Only if the two offences are cognate offences, wherein the main ingredients are common, the one punishable among them with a lesser sentence can be regarded as minor offence vis-à-vis the other offence."
The court noted support from the Supreme Court in Shaukat Hussain Guru v. State (NCT) Delhi & another, (2008) 6 SCC 776, where it was held, "Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) authorises and gives jurisdiction to the court to convict an accused of the charge which has not been framed, if he is found guilty of a minor offence."
In Suman Sood alias Kamal Jeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 5 SCC 634, the Supreme Court had stated, "if the accused is charged for a higher offence and on the evidence led by the prosecution, the court finds that the accused has not committed that offence but is equally satisfied that he has committed a lesser offence, then he can be convicted for such lesser offence."
However, the High Court stated the evidentiary defects in the prosecution’s case. It recorded, "the learned trial court committed grave illegality and irregularity in convicting the accused persons/appellants under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as the conviction is based upon hearsay evidence of the PW1 i.e. the informant and on the basis of Photostat copies of the alleged letters."
It further observed, "statements regarding supplying of original letter to the investigating officer made by the prosecution witnesses were only bald statements and were not supported by any evidence."
The court conclusively stated in favor of the appellants. It stated, "the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 11.06.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby set-aside."
Further, the court directed, "The appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their sureties be discharged forthwith."
It also ordered, "Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the trial court for consignment."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Vikram Singh Dhapola, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Case Title: XXXX v. State of Uttarakhand
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2007
Bench: Justice Pankaj Purohit
[Read/Download order]
