Prosecution Failed to Establish Motive and Link in Chain of Circumstantial Evidence – Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal in Dowry Harassment and Murder Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on May 14, 2024, dismissed the Chandigarh Administration’s application seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of Mohammad Israr and another respondent, who were charged under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, noting significant gaps in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly concerning the establishment of motive and the reliability of circumstantial evidence.
Facts and Issues:
The case stemmed from allegations by the complainant, Dilsher (PW-7), that his sister, Imrana, was harassed and eventually killed by her husband Israr and his brother Intezar over dowry demands. The prosecution alleged that Imrana was pressured to bring Rs. 2.5 lakh from her family and was subjected to abuse and threats.
The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, primarily the last seen theory and the recovery of a material exhibit (a chunni) supposedly used in the crime. Noor Mohammad (PW-5), a key witness, testified that he saw the respondents with the deceased shortly before her death.
Court’s Assessment:
The High Court meticulously examined the trial court’s findings and concurred with its conclusions on several critical points:
Failure to Prove Motive: “The prosecution has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record to prove the motive on the part of the respondents.” (Para 10)
The court observed that the alleged demand for Rs. 2.5 lakh and the previous payment of Rs. 1 lakh by the deceased’s family were not substantiated by any independent evidence or prior complaints.
Reliability of Witness Testimony: “The entire testimony of PW-5 becomes doubtful and cannot be safely relied upon.” (Para 12)
The High Court found inconsistencies and material improvements in the statements of key witnesses, particularly Noor Mohammad (PW-5), which undermined their credibility.
Circumstantial Evidence: “In the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, it is not possible to convict the appellant solely on the basis of the ‘last seen’ evidence.” (Para 11)
The court highlighted the lack of corroborative forensic evidence linking the respondents to the crime. The recovery of the chunni was not conducted according to proper procedure, and critical witnesses were not examined.
Medical Evidence: “The factum of death occurring due to strangulation has also not been proved.” (Para 12)
The Postmortem Report (PMR) indicated hanging as the cause of death, not strangulation, which contradicted the prosecution’s theory.
Delay in FIR Registration: The unexplained delay of more than 50 days in registering the FIR further weakened the prosecution’s case.
Decision: In light of these findings, the High Court concluded that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to overturn the acquittal. The court emphasized the limited scope of appellate interference with acquittal unless the trial court’s findings were perverse or wholly unsustainable.
“We do not find any illegality and perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.” (Para 16)
Date of Decision: 14th May 2024
State Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh vs. Mohammad Israr & Anr.
