Synopsis
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has acquitted a 69-year-old woman charged under the dowry prohibition law in 2005 due to the absence of firm evidence, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to present consistent and credible testimony in the case.Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court ruling acquits a 69-year-old woman in dowry case.
- Case lacked consistent evidence and documentary proof.
- Prosecution’s reliance on oral testimonies was deemed insufficient.
- Retracted testimonies raised doubts about credibility.
- Apex Court emphasizes need for clear evidence in criminal convictions.
New Delhi, Feb 5 (NationPress) In the absence of any firm or consistent evidence, the Supreme Court has acquitted a 69-year-old woman who was charged in 2005 under the dowry prohibition law.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reviewed a special leave petition challenging a ruling from the Telangana High Court, which had confirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, albeit reducing her sentence from six months of simple imprisonment to two months.
According to the prosecution, an engagement ceremony occurred in November 2005 between the complainant and the appellant's son, during which Rs 50,000 was purportedly given to the accused as dowry.
Thereafter, the appellant and other accused allegedly requested an additional dowry of Rs 5 lakh in cash, 20 tolas of gold, and other valuables, threatening to annul the marriage if these demands were not satisfied.
Despite offering Rs 1.5 lakh as a compromise, the complainant's family reportedly faced refusal to enter the appellant's residence, leading to the cancellation of the marriage.
An FIR was registered against the appellant and two others, and following an investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet. The trial court found the appellant and the other two accused guilty under the Dowry Prohibition Act, imposing sentences of rigorous imprisonment of three years and six months respectively (including fines).
On appeal, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Hyderabad modified the sentence to six months of simple imprisonment for each offence, while confirming the conviction.
In April 2023, the Telangana High Court partially granted the appellant's revision plea, reducing the sentence to two months of simple imprisonment for each offence and increasing the fine amount, yet upholding the conviction.
In its ruling, the Apex Court stated that the prosecution's claim of a dowry payment of Rs 50,000 on the engagement date lacked documentary evidence or independent verification.
The Court noted that the prosecution heavily relied on oral testimonies, which upon closer inspection, were found to be inconsistent, lacking corroboration, and potentially biased, making them unreliable overall.
It further observed that the statements given by the complainant, her parents, maternal grandfather, and a family friend were not credible due to contradictions and the absence of corroborating evidence.
“In the absence of any firm or consistent evidence, the dowry claim remains inadequately substantiated. In cases of dowry demand allegations, the prosecution must establish its case through consistent and credible evidence,” the Top Court highlighted.
During his testimony, the family acquaintance initially claimed knowledge of dowry payment, but later retracted this statement, admitting a lack of direct knowledge and stating he was only repeating what he had heard.
This retraction, along with his admitted close ties to the complainant's family, raises substantial doubts about his credibility. Other witnesses similarly failed to provide a consistent and dependable account,” asserted the Supreme Court.
The Court noted that witnesses mostly echoed the complainant’s allegations without offering substantial corroboration or firsthand accounts, further diminishing the testimonies' evidentiary value.
A thorough review of the evidence indicates that much of the prosecution's argument is based on hearsay, which significantly undermines its credibility. This reliance on hearsay, lacking supporting documentary evidence or neutral witnesses, raises serious doubts about the prosecution's ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt,” stated the Apex Court.
It emphasized that hearsay, unless fitting specific exceptions, cannot serve as the foundation for a conviction, especially in serious allegations like dowry demands and cheating.
The absence of documentary evidence, combined with inconsistencies and potential biases in the oral testimonies, creates a substantial evidentiary void. The principle that criminal convictions must be based on clear, credible evidence free from reasonable doubt was not observed in this case,” ruled the Top Court. A conviction for dowry demands must be supported by clear and credible evidence proving the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, stated the Justice Nath-led bench.
Concluding that the available evidence was insufficient to maintain the appellant's conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, the Apex Court determined that the concurrent findings of guilt could not be sustained and subsequently acquitted the appellant of all charges.
The Court ordered: “The judgment and order dated 06.04.2023 from the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, along with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, are hereby nullified. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. The appeal is granted.”
