Delhi High Court Orders Release of Appellant After Finding Lack of Direct Evidence
Case title: RAJ KUMAR VS STATE
Case no: CRL. A. 191/2002
Order on: May 22, 2024
Qoram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Fact of the case:
In this case, Raj Kumar Sharma appealed against a decision that found him guilty of certain crimes. The court had earlier convicted him for causing the death of his wife Smt. Vandana Sharma and mistreating her. He was accused of demanding dowry from her and treating her badly, which ultimately led to her death. The court sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for Section 304B and 2 years for Section 498A, with fines. During the trial, various witnesses were called to testify. Some witnesses claimed to have seen Raj Kumar mistreat his wife, while others said they heard about it from someone else. However, the court found some inconsistencies in their statements. One key incident involved Raj Kumar allegedly hitting his wife with an iron press. But the witnesses who testified about this incident weren’t directly involved; they heard about it from someone else. Also, there were discrepancies in their accounts. Another allegation was that Raj Kumar demanded money from his wife’s family. Again, the evidence was not clear-cut. Some witnesses said they heard about the demand from others, while others provided conflicting information. Ultimately, the court ruled in Raj Kumar’s favor, overturning his conviction. They found that the evidence presented wasn’t strong enough to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, he was acquitted of the charges and released from custody.
Legal provisions:
Section 304B IPC: Deals with dowry death, i.e., the death of a woman caused by burns or bodily injury within seven years of marriage and in connection with demands for dowry.
Section 498A IPC: Deals with cruelty towards a married woman by her husband or his relatives, which can include mental or physical harassment for dowry demands.
Section 374 Cr.P.C.: Provides for the appeal procedure against convictions by Sessions Courts.
Contentions of Appellant:
The appellant argued that there was a significant delay in filing the FIR after the alleged incident. He claimed this delay, along with other inconsistencies in the case, raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the allegations against him. He claimed there was no concrete proof of dowry demand or cruelty towards his wife.
Contentions of Respondents:
The respondent argued that the prosecution had presented substantial evidence to prove the appellant’s guilt. They maintained that the testimony of witnesses, particularly the deceased’s brothers, supported the charges of cruelty and dowry demand. The respondent asserted that the evidence presented during the trial, including witness testimonies and other documentary evidence, was sufficient to establish the appellant’s involvement in the crimes.
Court analysis & Judgement:
The court observed the appellant’s argument regarding the delay in filing the FIR. They found that the prosecution had adequately explained the circumstances surrounding the delay and deemed it insufficient to discredit the case. After reviewing everything, The court found that the evidence presented by both parties during the trial, discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses. Based on their analysis of the evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. They found inconsistencies and lack of direct evidence to substantiate the allegations. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning his conviction. They acquitted him of all charges and ordered his release from custody. The court discharged the bail and surety bonds, directing the forwarding of a copy of the judgment to the trial court and the concerned jail superintendent.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
Click to view the full judgement