Prosecution Utterly Failed To Substantiate Dowry Demand Or Cruelty Soon Before Death | Calcutta High Court Acquits Accused Citing Lack Of Convincing Evidence Under Sections 304B And 498A IPC
Isabella Mariam
The High Court at Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas has set aside a conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, stating that the prosecution "utterly and miserably failed to substantiate" allegations of dowry demand and cruelty against the appellants. The Court held that "absolutely there is no evidence in this case to prove that the victim suffered any" cruelty or harassment that satisfies the legal requirements of the charged offences. As a result, the Court allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted both appellants of all charges, thereby discharging them from their bail bonds and ordering their release.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, alleging that his daughter who was married to Mubarak Ansari, had been subjected to dowry-related harassment by her husband and in-laws. The complaint stated that the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased used to assault her and had demanded money and other valuables.
It was alleged that a year prior to her death, the deceased was assaulted by her father-in-law, resulting in injuries to her head and body. A 'salish' (village mediation) was held at the Kanki outpost in relation to that incident, during which the complainant claimed to have provided dowry in the form of silver ornaments. On 26.05.2007, the complainant was informed that his daughter had died by hanging. He alleged suspicious circumstances and attributed her death to the actions of her in-laws.
Police initiated a case under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC and filed a charge sheet after investigation. Charges were framed accordingly against four accused persons. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses. The defence did not present any evidence.
The trial resulted in a conviction of Mubarak Ansari and Khalil Ansari under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. They were sentenced to seven years' imprisonment under Section 304B and one year plus a fine under Section 498A.
In appeal, counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the offences. It was submitted that the post-mortem report showed no bodily injuries, undermining the allegations of physical abuse. Furthermore, the complainant’s testimony was not corroborated by other key witnesses such as the mother, brother, and uncle of the deceased.
It was also stated that the deceased had been at her parental house and returned to her matrimonial home on 25.05.2007, dying the next day. There was no evidence of cruelty or harassment between those dates. Counsel submitted that the alleged dowry-related demands were not proved and that the complaint lacked specific instances or medical evidence of assault.
The prosecution relied on the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, arguing that the unnatural death of a woman within seven years of marriage called for a presumption of dowry death. However, the defence argued that such a presumption could not arise without proof of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry soon before death.
Justice Prasenjit Biswas observed that "the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to substantiate that these appellants demanded dowry and subjected the deceased Rohimunnesa to torture over the said dowry demand soon before her death by adducing convincing, trustworthy and worth credence evidence."
The Court noted that "there is no scope of torture soon before her death" since the victim was at her parental house on 25.05.2007 and died the next day.
The Court stated: "Absolutely there is no evidence in this case to prove that the victim suffered any of these due to wilful conduct of the appellants." It added, "Similarly, there is no convincing evidence to prove that the appellants demanded dowry from PW10/de-facto complainant."
Addressing the lack of corroboration, the Court pointed out that "the statement of the de-facto complainant does not get any corroboration from any of the witnesses." PW10's allegations of dowry-related silver ornaments and monetary contributions were not supported by PW2, PW4, or PW12.
On the absence of medical evidence, the Court observed: "PW8, who treated the deceased victim one year before her death has not stated anything about any assault allegedly inflicted upon the victim by the appellants... not for pain out of assault." The post-mortem also showed no external injuries.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court referred to Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, noting that "The term 'cruelty' is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances."
The Court also invoked Major Singh v. State of Punjab, stating: "There must always be a proximate and live link between effects and cruelty based on dowry demand and death concerned."
Discussing Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court reiterated: "The presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry."
Referring to Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, the Court clarified: "Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution."
The Court thus concluded: "In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and discussion made above I am constrained to hold that the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to substantiate... beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt."
The Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 27.09.2013 and 30.09.2013. It held: "Hence, the impugned judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court... is set aside."
The appellants were acquitted: "The appellants are acquitted to charge levelled against them. The appellants are discharged from the liability of the bail bond and set at liberty."
The criminal appeal was allowed: "Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal being CRA 957 of 2013 is allowed."
"Let a copy of this order along with T.C.R. be sent down to the Trial Court immediately."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh, Mr. Shaharayar Alam.
For the State: Mr. Arindam Sen, Mr. Imran Ali.
Case Title: Mubarak Ansari & Anr. v. State of West Bengal
Case Number: CRA 957 of 2013
Bench: Justice Prasenjit Biswas
