Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

High Court Acquits Husband in Dowry Death Case: Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies and Delay in FIR as Key Factors

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment yesterday, the Gauhati High Court overturned the conviction of Sibu Sarkar, previously sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of his wife. The Bench, comprising Honourable Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, delivered a judgment that highlighted significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies and an unexplained delay in the filing of the FIR.

The High Court observed, “The delayed lodging of the FIR, in itself, raises a doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations leveled against the present appellant in the FIR.” This observation was central to their decision, emphasizing the importance of prompt and consistent reporting in legal proceedings, especially in criminal cases.

The judgment meticulously dissected the testimonies, particularly scrutinizing the reliability of a key child witness, PW-6, the daughter of the appellant and the deceased. The court noted material contradictions in her statements at different investigation stages, raising concerns about the possibility of her being influenced or tutored.

Another pivotal aspect of the case was the dying declaration of the victim, which suggested the fire was accidental. The court found that this crucial piece of evidence had not been given due weight by the Trial Court. The appellant’s legal representative, Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, argued effectively on these points, leading to a significant shift in the case’s direction.

The prosecution, represented by Ms. B. Bhuyan, Additional Public Prosecutor, and Ms. P. Bora, Advocate, argued for upholding the conviction, citing the initial Trial Court’s findings. However, the High Court’s judgment prioritized the inconsistencies and procedural delays that cast doubt on the conviction’s foundation.

This acquittal has sparked discussions among legal circles about the critical role of accurate and prompt FIR lodgment and the treatment of child witness testimonies in criminal trials. The judgment also serves as a reminder of the judicial system’s commitment to ensuring that justice is served based on thorough scrutiny of all available evidence.          

Date of Decision: November 18, 2023

SIBU SARKAR VS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

Latest Legal News