Supreme Court Acquits Father-in-Law in Dowry Harassment Case: Kantilal vs. State (2019)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the testimony of a witness can be solely relied upon for conviction without corroborating evidence in dowry harassment cases. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Dowry Harassment. Case Name: Kantilal vs. The State of Gujarat. Judgment Date: 04 October 2019

Date of the Judgment: 04 October 2019
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P . (Crl.) No. 1959 of 2019)
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a person be convicted solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a dowry harassment case. The case involved allegations of cruelty and abetment of suicide against the husband and his family members. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, acquitted the father-in-law, emphasizing the need for corroborating evidence when relying on a single witness’s testimony. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

On October 2, 2013, Maheshwari tragically committed suicide by jumping into the Sabarmati River. Her father (PW-1) filed a complaint alleging that Maheshwari was being harassed by her husband, Suhag Kantibhai Parmar, and his family for dowry demands. The complaint also stated that Suhag had an illicit relationship with another woman. The father-in-law, Kantilal Laxman Parmar (the Appellant), was accused of physically assaulting Maheshwari. Other family members, including Pratik @ Pintoo Kantibhai Parmar (brother-in-law), Bhavnaben Kantibhai Parmar (sister-in-law), and Manoramaben Kantibhai Parmar (mother-in-law), were also accused of physical and mental cruelty. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 498A, 306, 323, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, convicted all the accused under Sections 498A and 114 of the IPC. Suhag Kantibhai Parmar (Accused No. 2) was additionally convicted under Section 306 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Appellant, Kantilal Laxman Parmar (Accused No. 1), and Pratik @ Pintoo Kantibhai Parmar (Accused No. 3) were also convicted under Section 323 of the IPC. The High Court acquitted Accused Nos. 3, 4, and 5 but upheld the conviction of the Appellant and Accused No. 2. The Supreme Court heard the appeal filed by the Appellant, Kantilal Laxman Parmar, as Accused No. 2 had already served his sentence.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. It states: “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.”
• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section pertains to abetment of suicide. It states: “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It states: “Whoever, except in the case provided by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
• Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with abettor present when the offence is committed. It states: “Whenever any person who, if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.”
• Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: These sections deal with the offense of giving or taking dowry and the penalty for contravening the provisions of the Act.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The learned counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, argued that the evidence of PW-1 (the deceased’s father) should not have been relied upon by the trial court and the High Court to convict the Appellant.
• PW-1 testified that the deceased, Maheshwari, and his wife (PW-4) informed him that the Appellant had physically assaulted Maheshwari twice. However, PW-4 did not mention any such physical violence by the Appellant in her testimony.
• The counsel contended that the sole testimony of PW-1, without corroboration from PW-4, was insufficient to hold the Appellant guilty of the charges.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Ms. Aastha Mehta, representing the State, argued that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment by the Accused and his son, Suhag Kantibhai Parmar.
• The medical evidence revealed that the deceased was pregnant at the time of her death, indicating the extreme step was taken due to unbearable torture.
• The counsel submitted that PW-1’s evidence was sufficient to uphold the Appellant’s conviction, as he was also responsible for driving the deceased to commit suicide.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that was considered by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the conviction of the Appellant under Sections 498A, 114, and 323 of the IPC, based solely on the testimony of PW-1, without corroboration, is sustainable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or books. However, the court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a conviction cannot be solely based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, especially when there is a lack of consistency in the evidence.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The general principle of law that a conviction cannot be solely based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness was followed by the court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the Appellant was primarily influenced by the lack of corroborating evidence for the allegation of physical assault. The court emphasized that the testimony of PW-1, the deceased’s father, was not independently supported by PW-4, the deceased’s mother, who was also alleged to have informed PW-1 about the incident. This lack of corroboration was a critical factor in the court’s decision. The court also noted that apart from the allegation of physical assault, the Appellant stood on the same footing as the other accused who were acquitted by the High Court. The court was not convinced that the Appellant was solely responsible for the deceased’s suicide. The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the evidence must be reliable and consistent to sustain a conviction, especially in criminal cases.

The Supreme Court observed that “Reliance cannot be placed on the sole testimony of PW1, on the basis of which the Appellant was convicted under Sections 498A, 114 and 323 as there is no corroboration by PW4 who is alleged to have given the information to him.” The Court further stated that, “Other than the above allegation, the Appellant stands on the same footing as of Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 who have been acquitted by the High Court.” The Supreme Court concluded by saying that, “As the accusation of the physical assault by the appellant on the deceased is not proved, he is entitled to be acquitted.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that a conviction cannot be solely based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, especially in criminal cases.
• Corroborating evidence is essential to establish the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• In cases of dowry harassment, the courts must carefully scrutinize the evidence and ensure that the allegations are supported by reliable and consistent testimony.
• The court held that if the accusation of physical assault is not proved, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Appellant be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a conviction cannot be solely based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. This case reinforces the principle that corroborating evidence is essential to establish the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kantilal vs. The State of Gujarat underscores the importance of corroborating evidence in criminal cases. The court’s decision to acquit the father-in-law highlights that a conviction cannot be solely based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. This judgment reinforces the principle of fair trial and the need for reliable and consistent evidence to prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt.