Supreme Court acquits brother-in-law in dowry harassment case: Nimay Sah vs. State of Jharkhand (2 December 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 2 December 2020

Citation: [Not Provided in Source]

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Surya Kant, J.

Can a family member be convicted of dowry harassment based on general allegations without specific evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in the case of *Nimay Sah vs. State of Jharkhand*. The court examined whether the conviction of the appellant, the brother-in-law of the deceased, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was justified. The bench consisted of Justices N.V. Ramana and Surya Kant, with the judgment authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

Asha Kumari was married to Gora Sah and lived in her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that she was harassed for dowry of Rs. 10,000 by her husband, father-in-law, and brother-in-law. The demand was initially made to her father, Devendra Sah, at the time of her *vidai* ceremony. Due to the harassment, Asha’s father took her back to her parental home. On 18 February 1998, Gora Sah visited Asha at her parental home. On 20 February 1998, he took her for a morning walk. He returned alone and left abruptly. When Asha did not return, a search was conducted, and she was found dead near a canal with strangulation marks. An FIR was lodged against the accused under Section 304B read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Gora Sah under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to 10 years and 3 years of rigorous imprisonment respectively. Nitai Sah and Nimay Sah were convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment. All the accused appealed to the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision. Nimay Sah, the brother-in-law, then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with cruelty by husband or relatives of husband.

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

The Court also considered Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which deals with dowry death. However, the appellant was not charged under this provision.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Nimay Sah):

• The prosecution’s case is based on vague allegations and is not supported by independent witnesses.
• The entire family of the husband has been implicated in the case without specific evidence against each member.
• There is no specific evidence of any hostile attitude or persistent demand for dowry by the appellant.
• The deceased’s letters to her brother do not mention any harassment for dowry.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Jharkhand):

• The concurrent conviction by the trial court and the High Court indicates sufficient evidence to prove the appellant’s culpability.
• There is sufficient evidence to prove the culpability of the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be sustained based on the evidence on record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court did not rely on any specific case laws. The Court considered the testimonies of the following witnesses:

• Devendra Sah (P.W.10): Father of the deceased, who mentioned the appellant’s name along with other family members regarding dowry demand.
• Shyam Sunder Sah (P.W.7): Brother of the deceased, who stated that the deceased was troubled at her matrimonial home but did not specifically name the appellant. He also admitted that the deceased’s letters did not mention dowry harassment.
• Munna Sah (P.W.8): Brother of the deceased, who stated that the deceased was troubled at her matrimonial home but did not specifically name the appellant.
• Champa Devi (P.W.9): Witness, who stated that the deceased was troubled at her matrimonial home but did not specifically name the appellant.
• Panchanan Sah (P.W.2): Paternal uncle of the deceased, who did not support the prosecution’s case and was declared hostile.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Devendra Sah (P.W.10): The Court noted that while this witness mentioned the appellant’s name, it was in the same breath as other family members, without specific details of the appellant’s actions.
• Shyam Sunder Sah (P.W.7): The Court observed that this witness did not specifically name the appellant in his testimony. Additionally, his admission that the deceased’s letters did not mention dowry harassment weakened the prosecution’s case against the appellant.
• Munna Sah (P.W.8) and Champa Devi (P.W.9): The Court found that these witnesses did not specifically name the appellant in their testimonies.
• Panchanan Sah (P.W.2): The Court noted that this witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s story.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Nimay Sah was primarily influenced by the lack of specific evidence against him. The Court emphasized that the allegations were vague and did not meet the standard of proof required for a conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the allegations were vague and lacked specific instances of harassment. The Court stated:

“On perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses, we find that, Devendra Sah (P.W.10) names the appellant-accused to have been troubling the deceased for demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. However, in his deposition, the appellant-accused is named in the same breath along with other accused persons and their family members.”

“Apart from this witness, Shyam Sunder Sah (P.W.7), Munna Sah (P.W.8) and Champa Devi (P.W.9) depose that the deceased was being troubled at her matrimonial home, without particularly naming the appellant-accused, Nimay Sah.”

“Thus, on consideration of the oral testimonies of the witnesses, the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC have not been proved against the appellant-accused by the prosecution at the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.”

Key Takeaways

• Vague allegations are not sufficient to convict a person under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Specific evidence is required to prove the charge of dowry harassment against each accused person.
• The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The court will not convict an accused solely based on general allegations without specific details of their actions.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and acquitted the appellant. The bail bonds of the appellant were discharged.

Development of Law

The judgment clarifies that general allegations of dowry harassment are insufficient for conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the prosecution must provide specific evidence against each accused person to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a reiteration of the established principle of criminal law that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Nimay Sah vs. State of Jharkhand* highlights the importance of specific evidence in dowry harassment cases. The Court acquitted the appellant, Nimay Sah, emphasizing that vague allegations are not enough for a conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment underscores the need for the prosecution to provide concrete evidence against each accused person, ensuring that no one is convicted based on mere suspicion or general accusations.