Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Acquits Husband in Dowry Death Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has acquitted Raj Kumar, who was previously convicted for dowry death and cruelty towards his wife, Vandana Sharma. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence. This judgment overturns the 2002 verdict by the trial court, which had sentenced Raj Kumar to rigorous imprisonment.

The case revolved around the tragic death of Vandana Sharma, who died from 100% ante mortem flame burns on July 6, 1999, within three years of her marriage. Raj Kumar and his brothers were charged under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty) of the IPC. The trial court convicted Raj Kumar, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for dowry death and 2 years for cruelty, while acquitting his brothers. The State did not challenge the acquittal of the co-accused.

Delay in FIR Registration:The defense argued that the delay in registering the FIR indicated false allegations. The incident occurred on July 6, 1999, but the FIR was filed only on July 12, 1999. The court noted that while the initial delay could raise suspicions, the hospital intimation and police diary entries were made promptly. The delay in recording witness statements was attributed to procedural issues rather than deliberate falsehood.

Demand for Dowry:The court closely examined the allegations of dowry demands and harassment. Testimonies from the deceased’s brothers were found to be inconsistent and largely hearsay. The court noted, “The prosecution has failed to prove the two alleged incidents beyond reasonable doubt.” Furthermore, the non-examination of key witnesses, such as Sunita who allegedly witnessed the abuse, undermined the prosecution’s case.

Witness Testimonies: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri emphasized the necessity of reliable and consistent testimonies in criminal prosecutions. The court found that the brothers’ statements were contradictory and lacked direct evidence. Their claims about physical abuse and dowry demands were not substantiated by material evidence or corroborated by other witnesses.

Material Contradictions:Several contradictions in the brothers’ testimonies were highlighted. For example, one brother mentioned an incident involving the appellant hitting the deceased with an iron press, but this was not corroborated by direct witnesses or supporting evidence. Similarly, allegations about a Rs. 10,000 dowry demand were inconsistent and lacked documentary proof.

Justice Ohri stated, “On a careful examination of the entire evidence that has come on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the two alleged incidents beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.” He further observed, “The witnesses have failed to mention any date, month, or even year for both the incidents. While the knowledge of the first incident is hearsay, there are material contradictions with regard to the second incident.”

The Delhi High Court’s ruling to acquit Raj Kumar underscores the critical need for credible and consistent evidence in cases of dowry death and cruelty. The judgment highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that convictions are based on solid and reliable evidence, thereby setting a precedent for future cases. The decision also discharges Raj Kumar’s bail and surety bonds, providing him with legal relief after years of litigation.

Date of Decision:22nd May 2024

Raj Kumar v. State

Similar News