Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said the courts are warranted to be more cautious and circumspect with respect to the allegations under Section 304B (dowry death) of the IPC since allegations coming forth often could be motivated by the despair of an abrupt death of a daughter or sibling, at the matrimonial home; especially when there is a history of a marital discord which otherwise would not escalate to this magnitude.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran rejected an appeal filed by the Uttarakhand government against the acquittal of one Sanjay Ram Tamta alias Sanju alias Prem Prakash in a case related to unnatural death of his wife within six months of the marriage.

The wife, hardly into six months of marriage, was found hanging, by her father and brother who reached the matrimonial home, wherein she resided with her husband, the court noted.

"Death, the causation of which is a demand for dowry is akin to murder, even if it is not homicidal, as is evident from Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act," the bench said.

In the case, the husband-Sanjay Ram Tamta was arrested. Later, his relatives i.e., his parents, grandfather and brother were also implicated and joined as accused. The family stood trial in which the prosecution examined nine witnesses.

The trial court, however, acquitted everyone except the husband, finding that the prosecution could not prove their presence in the separate household in which the couple resided and there was no proof of a proximate allegation of harassment on account of demand of dowry which could be co-related with the death of the deceased.

The husband was convicted primarily on the ground that the scratches on the body of the deceased could not be explained by reason only of the hanging, since the body was at a distance from the walls of the room.

The high court after examining the evidence of the witnesses, specifically that of the deceased's brother and father, found that the financial and social status of the parties; made improbable a demand of Rs 4,00,000 and a plot for construction of a house and hence, the demand for dowry having led to the death of the deceased was not proved by the prosecution.

Considering the State's appeal, the bench said, "Trite is the principle that the appellate courts would be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially since the presumption of innocence that is always available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the acquittal and unless there are very substantive and compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal of an order of acquittal".

"Unless it is found that the findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible from the compelling evidence is of guilt; appellate courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal," it pointed out.

Upon examining the evidence, the court noted that the death was suicidal, as confirmed by expert opinion. However, a 2x1 cm scratch mark with redness led the trial court to presume that the deceased had been subjected to physical violence.

"Immediately we have to state that by the nature of the injury and the failure of the prosecution to elicit any such opinion from the Doctor, the expert witness, we find that difficult to believe," it said.

In the case, the bench found though the informant-the father of the woman spoke of the demand of dowry of Rs 4,00,000 and a house-plot, as seen from the FIR, in the Section 161 CrPC statement recorded from him no such demand was spoken of. The brother of the deceased also did not make such a statement before the police.

Both the witnesses admitted that the parental home of the respondent-husband and the separate home where the couple resided had a number of houses within the vicinity. None were questioned and examined to bring out the alleged bickerings and the physical torture, the court pointed out.

There was also no oral evidence to prove the violence perpetrated on the young bride, by the family of the accused, at their house when she had been residing there, it said.

The bench said, more important is the fact that the landlord of the house in which the couple resided, turned hostile and denied any incident of the relatives coming to that residence, making demands of dowry from the deceased or even the knowledge of the husband having demanded such dowry.

"On the contrary, in the cross examination of the accused, the landlord spoke of the adamant attitude of the deceased who made unreasonable demands of the accused and also refused to co-operate with the family of the accused. He specifically spoke of a quarrel on the evening of the fateful day, when the wife created a ruckus, threw articles out of the house and locked the husband out," the court said.

He also spoke of having seen the husband returning after some time and knocking on the door, which was not opened by the wife. Later, the father of the wife came to the house pushed the door open, and walked in to see his daughter hanging, the court noted.

The bench thus said, "On a reading of the evidence recorded at trial, we are of the considered opinion that the demand of dowry was not proved by the prosecution. The omissions in the statements under Section 161 CrPC; which are deemed to be material contradictions put to peril the prosecution story of demand of dowry."

The court further pointed out that both the father and brother of the deceased admitted in their deposition that they had not personally witnessed any physical violence on the wife and the father also deposed that the son-in-law was quite aware of his financial condition; which would not have enabled him to raise Rs 4,00,000 or purchase a plot for construction of a house.

"It was his specific statement that the son-in-law and his family was apprised of this fact at the time of marriage and they had agreed to accept his daughter, as such. The essential ingredient of a demand of dowry being absent under Section 304B of the IPC, we cannot find the suicidal death; though, categorised as an unnatural one, as one akin to murder inviting a punishment under Section 304B of the IPC," the bench said.

Rejecting the appeal, the court confirmed the acquittal of the respondent accused.

Case Title: State of Uttarakhand Vs Sanjay Ram Tamta @ Sanju @ Prem Prakash