In a significant development in a long-pending dowry death case, a Kanpur court has taken stern action against prosecution witnesses who allegedly switched sides during the trial. Additional Sessions Judge VII, Azad Singh, on Thursday acquitted three accused due to insufficient evidence but simultaneously ordered the registration of a miscellaneous case against three key prosecution witnesses for favouring the defence.
Court's Stern Action Against Hostile Witnesses
The judge directed that a case under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) be registered against the witnesses. The identified individuals are Shiv Kumar Gupta, his mother Chunni Devi, and his sister Anju Devi. The court has scheduled the next hearing in this matter for January 6, 2026.
According to Additional District Government Counsel Vinod Tripathi, the tragic case dates back 19 years. The original First Information Report (FIR) was lodged in 2006 by Shiv Kumar Gupta, a resident of Muswapur Zafarganj Fatehpuri under the Kalyanpur police station area.
Details of the 2006 Dowry Death Case
Shiv Kumar Gupta had alleged that his sister, Manju, was married to their neighbour from Lucknow, Manoj Gupta, in a mass marriage function. The complaint accused Manoj Gupta, his parents, and his sister of a heinous crime: pouring kerosene on Manju and setting her on fire. Manju succumbed to her burn injuries during treatment on July 17, 2006.
A critical point in the case timeline is that the formal police report regarding the incident was filed after a significant delay of 40 days, on August 26, 2006. The case had been undergoing trial since then.
The Witnesses' U-Turn That Sealed the Case
The court's decision to act against the witnesses stems from their contradictory statements during the trial. During their initial examination, Shiv Kumar, Chunni Devi, and Anju Devi supported the prosecution's narrative. However, during cross-examination, they dramatically changed their stance and offered statements that supported the accused.
In his cross-examination, Shiv Kumar Gupta, the complainant and brother of the deceased, stated that he had reached a compromise with the main accused, Manoj Gupta. He claimed Manoj had admitted his fault and expressed regret, leading to the compromise. The other two witnesses gave similar statements, effectively undermining the prosecution's case.
Presiding Judge Azad Singh took a serious view of this volte-face by the witnesses. The order for a miscellaneous case under CrPC Section 344 indicates the court's intent to examine potential charges of giving false evidence or offences against public justice. The acquittal of the three accused—Manoj Gupta and his parents—was a direct consequence of the collapse of the prosecution's evidence following the witnesses' changed testimonies.
This ruling highlights the persistent challenges the judiciary faces in dowry and domestic violence cases, where witness testimony is often crucial, and witness turncoat behaviour can derail justice. The court's move to hold witnesses accountable sets a notable precedent.
