Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently set aside the conviction of two men for murder, which was based solely on suspicion, in a 44-year-old case involving death of their relative's wife by burning, allegedly due to the non-fulfillment of dowry demands.

A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, Augustine George Masih, and K Vinod Chandran held that the conviction of Suresh Chandra and another was not sustainable. The court emphasized that the approach in a criminal trial must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, rather than probability or possibility.

"We are of the view that the conviction here is based only on suspicion. However strong the suspicion, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt," the bench said, referring to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra (1984).

The FIR in the case was lodged on July 14, 1981, on a complaint by Chhote Lal, uncle of deceased Ram Dulari, married to accused Umesh Chandra, alleging she was set ablaze by her in-laws for dowry and not giving birth to a child even after three years of marriage.

The trial court, by its judgment on December 8, 198,3 convicted all six accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Allahabad High Court on October 29, 2021, dismissed the convicts' appeal.

Examining the matter, the apex court said, "We are amazed with the approach adopted by the High Court. The High Court has observed that the motive for killing the deceased was a plausible one. The High Court has further observed that the prosecution case that the appellants set the deceased on fire was a possible and acceptable view. The approach in the criminal trial has to be of proof beyond reasonable doubt and not the probability or a possibility."

Senior advocate Rajul Bhargava, appearing for appellants-accused number one and four, submitted that it was a case without any evidence. He said the judge of the trial court had convicted the appellants, and judges of the high court had confirmed it only on the basis of conjectures and surmises.

There were twelve persons residing; however, the investigating agency, for the reasons best known to them, had only chosen to proceed against the six accused persons, he pointed out. He further submitted that even the prosecution had failed to prove that the death was homicidal and the possibility of the death being accidental could not be ruled out.

The State counsel Vikas Bansal said the trial court as well as the high court had concurrently, on the basis of correct appreciation of evidence, convicted the appellants. He submitted that the conduct of the appellants was also important, inasmuch as they were absconding after the incident had taken place. 

The Supreme Court noted that the case rested basically on the evidence of Chhote Lal and Hari Narain, uncle and father of the deceased, respectively.

It pointed out that the prosecution had examined one independent witness i.e., Raja Ram to establish that there was commotion in the house of the accused persons and that he had heard about it, when he was passing by the house.

However, both the trial court as well as the high court has found that he is a chance witness and his testimony is not trustworthy. As such his testimony has been discarded, the apex court highlighted.

It also noted that the case occurred prior to Section 304-B of the IPC being brought on the statute book. As such, the present case would fall only within the parameters of Section 302 IPC, court said. 

"For this court to uphold the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellants who have committed the offence," the bench said.

Court also pointed out that there was no doubt that in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden would shift upon the accused.

However, for the burden to shift upon the accused, the initial burden will have to be discharged by the prosecution. In a case such as the present one, the prosecution will have to show that before the death occurred it is only the appellants who were in the company of the deceased. The issue would have been different if it was only the husband and the wife who were residing together and the death had occurred in suspicious circumstances, the bench pointed out.

However, in the present case there were around 12 persons residing along with the deceased. In such circumstances, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish as to which of the accused persons was in the company of the deceased prior to her death being noticed.

"Unfortunately, in the present case the prosecution has chosen to proceed against all the male members of the family and the mother-in-law of the deceased. Only the other women in the family i.e. the wives of the other brothers of the accused/Umesh, have not been proceeded against," the court noted.

Indisputably, the bench said, the case at hand rested on circumstantial evidence. As such, the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellants and the appellants alone, who have committed the crime. Every hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants will have to be ruled out, the bench held.

"In the present case, we find that no such chain of circumstances has been established by the prosecution, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is appellants and the appellants alone who have committed the crime," the bench said.

With regard to alleged motive of dowry, the bench pointed out, the father of the deceased stated the relationship between appellants and his family was cordial and they used to visit his house and he had not made any complaint to anyone with regard to ill-treatment of the deceased on account of demand of dowry.

The court noted that his evidence further showed that the deceased was an educated person. It further pointed out that the father of the deceased had also admitted that there was no letter addressed by the deceased to her family members regarding demand of dowry and ill-treatment on account of non-fulfillment thereof.

The court thus allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants of all the charges. It ordered their release forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Case Title: Suresh Chandra And Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh