Supreme Court overturns dowry death conviction: Girish Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (23 July 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 23 July 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 712
Judges: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph
Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal in a dowry death case based on unreliable witness testimony? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in the case of *Girish Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand*. The Court overturned the High Court’s conviction, emphasizing the importance of a thorough analysis of evidence, especially in appeals against acquittals. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph, with Justice K.M. Joseph authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves the death of Ishwari Devi, who died by suicide from burn injuries on June 5, 1991, within 1.5 years of her marriage to Girish Singh, the first accused. The prosecution alleged that Girish Singh and his father, Jodh Singh (the second accused), subjected Ishwari Devi to cruelty for dowry demands. Specifically, it was alleged that they demanded a TV and VCR, and that Jodh Singh also harassed her, including making inappropriate advances. The Trial Court acquitted both accused, but the High Court reversed this decision, convicting them under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), while finding no case under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Supreme Court heard an appeal against this conviction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted both Girish Singh and Jodh Singh, finding the prosecution’s evidence unreliable. The State appealed this acquittal to the High Court. The High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, convicting the appellants under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court concluded that the deceased was subjected to mental cruelty for dowry demands, leading to her suicide. The High Court relied heavily on the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, dismissing contradictions and omissions in their statements. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court against their conviction.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court analyzed the following key legal provisions:

✓ Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines dowry death as the death of a woman within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, where it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for dowry demands. It states, “Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.”

✓ Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section establishes a presumption of dowry death. It states, “When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.”

The Court emphasized that the cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with the demand for dowry, and that the presumption under Section 113B is rebuttable.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal by the Trial Court.
• They contended that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and had improved their versions during their testimony.
• The appellants highlighted contradictions between the witnesses’ court testimonies and their previous statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC).
• The appellants emphasized the letters written by the father of the deceased (PW4) which did not mention any dowry harassment.

State’s Submissions:

• The State supported the High Court’s judgment, arguing that there was sufficient evidence to justify the conviction.
• The State contended that the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses was reliable and trustworthy.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal in the face of contradictory evidence and unreliable witnesses.
2. Whether the prosecution had established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death.
3. Whether the High Court correctly applied the legal principles governing appeals against acquittals, particularly in cases involving Section 304B of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to several cases to clarify the principles governing appeals against acquittals:

The Court also discussed the following legal provisions:

✓ Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Explained the elements required to establish dowry death.

✓ Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Explained the presumption as to dowry death and its rebuttable nature.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa [(2015) 11 SCC 124]*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused and that the view favoring the accused should be taken if two views are possible.

✓ Dilawar Singh and others v. State of Haryana [(2015) 1 SCC 737]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that an Appellate Court should not interfere with an acquittal merely because a different view is possible; substantial and compelling reasons must exist to interfere with an acquittal.

✓ Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh Through Secretary [AIR 2010 SC 589]*: This case was used to support the principle that interference in an appeal against acquittal should be rare and in exceptional circumstances. The Court also noted that the High Court can reappraise evidence if the Trial Court’s judgment is perverse.

✓ K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan [(2008) 1 SCC 258]*: The Court cited this authority to emphasize that if two views are possible and the Trial Court has taken one of them, the Appellate Court should not interfere.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual inconsistencies and unreliability of the prosecution’s evidence. The Court found that the High Court had overstepped its bounds in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal, particularly given the contradictory statements of the witnesses and the absence of dowry harassment allegations in the letters written by the deceased’s father. While the legal principles were important, the Court’s decision was driven by a careful examination of the factual record.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, including the High Court’s view that the oral testimony of the witnesses was reliable and that the letters written by the deceased contained allegations of dowry harassment. However, the Supreme Court rejected these interpretations, emphasizing the contradictions in the witnesses’ statements, the absence of dowry-related allegations in the father’s letters, and the High Court’s overreach in reversing the acquittal. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of dowry death under Section 304B of the IPC.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following key reasons:

• The prosecution witnesses were unreliable due to significant contradictions and omissions in their testimonies, especially when compared with their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.PC.
• The letters written by the deceased’s father (PW4) did not mention any dowry harassment, contradicting the prosecution’s claims.
• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal, which was based on a possible view of the evidence.
• The prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death, which is a prerequisite for a conviction under Section 304B of the IPC.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing to allow the appeals and set aside the High Court’s conviction.

Key Takeaways

• Appellate Courts must exercise caution when reversing acquittals by Trial Courts, especially in cases where the Trial Court’s view of the evidence is a possible one.
• In dowry death cases, the prosecution must establish that the cruelty or harassment was directly linked to dowry demands and occurred soon before the victim’s death.
• The reliability of witness testimony is crucial, and contradictions or omissions in their statements must be carefully considered.
• The presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is rebuttable, and the accused must be given a fair opportunity to present their defense.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants, who were released on bail during the course of the appeals, need not surrender and their bail bonds were discharged.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principles governing appeals against acquittals, particularly in dowry death cases. The judgment emphasizes that the prosecution must establish a clear link between the cruelty or harassment and the demand for dowry. The Court also highlights the importance of scrutinizing witness testimony for inconsistencies and omissions. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of existing legal principles.

Conclusion

In *Girish Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand*, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction of the appellants for dowry death, emphasizing the need for a thorough analysis of evidence and the limitations on appellate review of acquittals. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of dowry death, particularly the link between cruelty and dowry demands, and that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal. This judgment underscores the importance of reliable evidence and adherence to legal principles in dowry death cases.