Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said held that a conviction for dowry demand has to be founded on clear and credible evidence which proves the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and the prosecution cannot rest its case merely on hearsay evidence, unsupported by documentary proof or neutral witnesses.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta thus acquitted a 69-year-old woman, by setting aside the Telangana High Court's judgment which upheld her conviction under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but reduced her sentence from six to two months simple imprisonment.

As per the facts of the case, the appellant's son got engaged with the complainant on November 11, 2005 and a sum of Rs 50,000 was paid to her family but the marriage could not take place in view of further demand of Rs 5 lakh in cash and 20 tolas of gold and others articles, resulting into registration of the FIR.

Upon the conclusion of criminal proceedings, the trial court convicted the appellant, her son and another accused to three years jail. On appeal, the sessions court reduced the sentence to six months imprisonment. The High Court by its impugned judgment on April 6, 2923 further reduced the sentence to two months jail while upholding the conviction. The appellant's son died in 2023 during the pendency of appeal before the High Court.

After analysing the evidence, the bench noted prosecution’s assertion of an alleged dowry payment of Rs 50,000 on the date of engagement remained unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence or independent corroboration.

The court also emphasised that while the offence of dowry demand can, in certain factual scenarios, implicate other family members, each accused must be shown to have actively participated in the alleged offence.

"A conviction for dowry demand has to be founded on clear and credible evidence that proves the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the prosecution’s narrative falls short of that benchmark. The inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses statement and the dearth of corroborating evidence severely undermines the reliability of the prosecution’s version. By merely reducing the sentence, the High Court has erred in its assessment of the guilt of the appellant," the bench said.

The bench further said this court believes that, in the absence of any firm or consistent evidence, the claim of a paid dowry remains insufficiently proven.

"In cases involving allegations of dowry demand and associated offenses, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing its case through consistent and credible evidence. In the present case, the prosecution has relied heavily on oral testimonies to substantiate its allegations. However, a close examination of the record reveals that these testimonies are marred by inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and potential bias, rendering them unreliable as a whole," the bench said.

Referring to testimonies of the complainant, her parents and others, the bench said, their statements failed to inspire confidence due to contradictions and the absence of any corroborating documentary evidence.

The court noted the complainant, admitted during her testimony that no document exists to prove the alleged payment, and no independent witness was produced to validate this claim.

"A closer examination of the evidence reveals that much of the prosecution’s case is built on hearsay testimony, further weakening its credibility. PW-5, who was presented as an independent witness to corroborate the allegations, admitted during cross-examination that he had no direct knowledge of the alleged dowry payment or demands. His testimony was largely based on what he had been told by others, including the complainant’s relatives, rather than firsthand observations," the bench said.

Similarly, the court noted, the statements of other prosecution evidence, though consistent with the complainant’s narrative, are primarily reiterations of the complainant’s version without any independent or contemporaneous corroboration.

"This reliance on hearsay evidence, unsupported by documentary proof or neutral witnesses, casts significant doubt on the prosecution's ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is well established that hearsay, unless falling within specific exceptions, cannot form the basis of a conviction, especially in cases where the charges involve serious allegations such as dowry demand and cheating," the bench said.

In strong observations, the bench said, despite these deficiencies, the courts below did not subject the testimonies of these witnesses to the rigorous scrutiny required in criminal trials.

"The absence of documentary evidence, combined with the inconsistencies and potential biases in the oral testimonies, creates a significant evidentiary gap. The principle that criminal convictions must rest on evidence that is clear, credible, and free from reasonable doubt has not been adhered to in this case," the bench said.

In the case, the court also noted that, in the complainant’s deposition, the primary demand for dowry was attributed to the appellant's son, who unfortunately passed away during the pendency of the matter.

"This court is not persuaded that the record demonstrates any overt act by the appellant to substantiate the charge of dowry demand, apart from her familial relationship with the principal accused," the bench said.

Among other factors, the bench noted the appellant, a 69-year-old individual, was solely responsible for the care of her young grandchild due to the unfortunate circumstances related to her son's divorce in 2018 and death in 2023. The appellant and the grandchild have been abandoned by her husband.

"While personal hardship cannot, in itself, absolve criminal liability, it does underscore the importance of scrutinising the evidence with heightened rigor before imposing penal consequences," the bench said.

The court opined the appellant’s age, health issues, and the burden of caring for her grandchild further highlighted the necessity of ensuring that a conviction is not based on unreliable or insufficient evidence.

"This court believes that, given the appellant’s longstanding plea of non involvement, her familial circumstances, and the significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, the benefit of doubt must be extended," the bench said.

The court set aside the High Court's judgment and concurrent findings of guilt of the appellant, saying the evidence on record is insufficient to uphold the appellant’s conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Title (Download Judgment):  Rajeswari Vs The State of Telangana