Supreme Court overturns High Court conviction in dowry death case: Sham Lal vs. State of Haryana (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 09, 2019
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and M.R. Shah, J.
Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal based on a different interpretation of evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a dowry death case, ultimately overturning the High Court’s decision and reinstating the trial court’s acquittal. This case highlights the importance of the standard of review in appellate proceedings, especially in criminal matters. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

Usha married Sham Lal (the Appellant) in December 1990. According to the First Information Report (FIR) filed by Usha’s brother, Pawan Kumar (PW-9), Sham Lal demanded a dowry of Rs. 1,00,000 two months after the marriage. Usha’s family gave Rs. 50,000 to Sham Lal. Usha later complained to her family that her mother-in-law, Ganga Devi, her husband, Sham Lal, and her brothers-in-law, Krishan Lal and Ved Prakash, were harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry. After the birth of a female child, the family gave gifts as per custom, but the Appellant and his family were not satisfied. On September 28, 1992, Pawan Kumar received information that Usha and her child had died due to burn injuries. He went to the Appellant’s house and found them dead. An investigation was conducted, and a charge sheet was filed against the Appellant, his mother, and two brothers under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and alternatively, under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted all the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, finding no evidence of murder. Regarding the alternative charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, the trial court examined the prosecution’s claim of a dowry demand of Rs. 1,00,000 and the payment of Rs. 50,000. The trial court disbelieved the testimony of PW-9 regarding a loan taken from the Co-operative Bank in February 1991, as the bank records showed he became a member only in March 1992 and took a loan in June 1992. The trial court also noted that the Appellant and the deceased lived separately on the first floor of the house, had separate ration cards, and had a prior dispute settled by a panchayat. Based on these findings, the trial court acquitted all the accused. The High Court reversed the acquittal of the Appellant, convicting him under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and sentencing him to seven years imprisonment, while affirming the acquittal of the other accused.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 302, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for murder.
• Section 34, IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 304-B, IPC: This section deals with dowry death, which states that if a woman dies within seven years of her marriage due to burns or bodily injury, and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for dowry, it is considered a dowry death.
• Section 498-A, IPC: This section deals with cruelty by husband or his relatives towards a woman.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the Appellant and his family harassed Usha for dowry, leading to her death within seven years of marriage. They relied on the testimony of Usha’s brothers, PW-9 and PW-11, who stated that they paid Rs. 50,000 to the Appellant after he demanded Rs. 1,00,000 as dowry. The prosecution contended that this established the necessary elements for conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC. The Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the dowry demand and the payment. He also contended that the trial court had correctly evaluated the evidence and that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal. The Appellant highlighted the contradictions in PW-9’s testimony regarding the loan from the Co-operative Bank.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal of the Appellant.
2. Whether the prosecution was able to prove cruelty on the part of the Appellant and other accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2): The Privy Council in this case laid down the principles for an appellate court to follow while dealing with an appeal against acquittal. The court emphasized that the High Court should give proper weight to the trial judge’s views on witness credibility, the presumption of innocence, the benefit of doubt, and the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing findings of fact.

Judgment

The following table shows how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:

The following table shows how each authority was viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that an acquittal by the trial court should not be overturned unless it is perverse or wholly unsustainable. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have given due weight to the trial court’s assessment of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. The Court noted that the High Court had ignored the trial court’s findings on the payment of dowry and the contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence. The Court also highlighted that the possibility of another view cannot be a ground for reversing an acquittal by the Appellate Court.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the High Court had erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal. The Court noted that the trial court had thoroughly analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution had failed to prove the dowry demand and the cruelty on the part of the Appellant. The Court reiterated the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless it is perverse or unsustainable. The Court observed that the High Court had not given due weight to the trial court’s assessment of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. The Court emphasized that the possibility of another view cannot be a ground for reversing an acquittal. The Supreme Court stated:

“The law is well settled that an acquittal by the trial court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable.”

“Possibility of another view cannot be a ground for reversing acquittal by the Appellate Court.”

“The High Court committed an error in reaching a different conclusion regarding the cruelty by observing that there was a demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Appellant pursuant to which Rs.50,000/- was paid by the family members of the deceased.”

There was no dissenting opinion, and the judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges.

Key Takeaways

• An acquittal by a trial court should not be reversed by an appellate court unless it is perverse or wholly unsustainable.
• Appellate courts must give due weight to the trial court’s assessment of evidence and the credibility of witnesses.
• The possibility of another view is not a sufficient ground for reversing an acquittal.
• In cases involving dowry death, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this case. The primary outcome was the reversal of the High Court’s conviction and the reinstatement of the trial court’s acquittal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court should not reverse a trial court’s acquittal unless it is perverse or wholly unsustainable. This case reinforces the established principles of appellate review in criminal matters, emphasizing the importance of the trial court’s assessment of evidence and witness credibility. The Supreme Court did not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirmed the existing legal position regarding the reversal of acquittals.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the conviction of the Appellant by the High Court and restoring the trial court’s acquittal. The Court emphasized the importance of the trial court’s findings and the limitations on appellate review in criminal cases. This case serves as a reminder of the high standard required to overturn an acquittal and the need for appellate courts to give due weight to the trial court’s assessment of evidence.