Supreme Court Acquits Mother-in-Law in Dowry Death Case: Dev Kanya Tiwari vs. State of U.P. (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 12, 2018
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld solely on circumstantial evidence when there’s a strong possibility of suicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a mother-in-law was accused of murdering her son-in-law. The Court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, ultimately deciding in favor of the accused, highlighting the importance of a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, with Justice N.V. Ramana authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Brij Bhushan Tiwari, who was found dead in his in-laws’ house. The complainant, Shashi Bhushan Tiwari (PW5), the brother of the deceased, alleged that his brother was murdered by his wife and mother-in-law. The incident occurred on September 29, 1995, when Brij Bhushan had gone to his in-laws’ house to see his children. However, the wife of the deceased, Santosh Devi, had also filed a complaint stating that her husband had consumed poison and died. The trial court convicted the mother-in-law, Dev Kanya Tiwari, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a decision that was upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Dev Kanya Tiwari under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing her to life imprisonment. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld this conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts had erred in relying on circumstantial evidence and ignoring the possibility of suicide. The Supreme Court noted that the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, requiring a careful analysis of the evidence to ensure that the chain of circumstances leads to the irresistible conclusion of the accused’s guilt.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder. The section states: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” Additionally, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was invoked, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states: “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” The Supreme Court also considered the principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence, as laid down in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1953 CriLJ 129, which emphasizes that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The conviction was based on the postmortem report which indicated death by strangulation, but the other evidence suggested suicide by poisoning.
• The deceased had blisters all over his body and bluish nails, indicating poisoning.
• The viscera was not preserved by the doctors, which was a crucial lapse.
• The panchanama report, prepared in the presence of PW5, did not mention any ligature mark or injuries.
• There were no independent witnesses to support the prosecution’s case.

State’s Arguments:

• The medical evidence supported the cause of death as strangulation.
• The deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.
• The chain of events was completely proved.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument innovatively highlighted the inconsistencies between the postmortem report and other evidence, particularly the possibility of suicide by poisoning, which was supported by the wife’s complaint and the physical symptoms of the deceased.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the accused under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on circumstantial evidence, is sustainable when there is a strong possibility of suicide?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1953 CriLJ 129 – This case was cited to emphasize the principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence, stating that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1953 CriLJ 129 – The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in this case for evaluating circumstantial evidence.

• The Supreme Court considered Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but found that the evidence did not conclusively prove the guilt of the accused under these provisions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and the strong possibility of suicide. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events pointing to the guilt of the accused. The non-preservation of viscera, the wife’s complaint indicating suicide by poisoning, and the lack of independent witnesses all weighed heavily in favor of the accused.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the possibility of suicide, the lack of independent witnesses, and the non-preservation of viscera. The court also noted that the trial court had disbelieved some of the claims made by PW5. The court stated, “In the case on hand there is no direct evidence as to the deceased consuming poison or having been done to death by throttling.” The court also said, “The presence of blisters all over the body of the deceased and his nails turning into bluish colour, no mark of fingers on the body of the deceased as noted in the postmortem report…all these circumstances form ample evidence to strengthen the case of the accused that the deceased committed suicide.” The court further observed, “the Courts below must have persuaded themselves to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant, as in the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is not safe to convict the accused under Section 302 IPC.” The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of events pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must lead to an irresistible conclusion of guilt.
• The possibility of suicide must be thoroughly investigated and ruled out in cases of unnatural death.
• Non-preservation of viscera in cases of suspected poisoning can be fatal to the prosecution’s case.
• The benefit of doubt should always be given to the accused if two views are possible based on the evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events that points towards the guilt of the accused. The court reiterated the principle that if two views are possible, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted. This case also underscores the importance of proper investigation and preservation of evidence, especially in cases of unnatural death. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Dev Kanya Tiwari highlights the importance of a thorough investigation and a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized that the possibility of suicide must be carefully considered, and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards required for a conviction in criminal cases, particularly in cases of murder.