Noida Fast Track Court Acquits Father and Son in Dowry Death Case Following Hostile Witnesses
A fast track court in Noida, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Dwivedi, has acquitted a man and his father of all charges related to the dowry death of the man's wife. The acquittal came after every single prosecution witness turned hostile during the trial, retracting their initial statements and asserting that the deceased woman died from natural causes rather than dowry-related harassment.
Case Background and Initial Allegations
The case originated from an FIR registered at the Greater Noida police station on October 20, 2018. The complainant, Narvar Singh, filed the report against his niece's husband, Amit, and Amit's father, Braham Singh, following the death of his niece, Chanchal, on that same day. In his complaint, Singh alleged that Chanchal had been married to Amit since November 20, 2011, and had faced continuous torture and harassment from her in-laws over demands for dowry, specifically a car and cash.
Based on these allegations, the police registered a case under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act. These included Section 498A, which pertains to willfully harming a woman for dowry, and Section 304B, which addresses unnatural deaths of women within seven years of marriage linked to dowry demands.
Hostile Witnesses Undermine Prosecution's Case
During the trial, the prosecution's case completely collapsed as key witnesses changed their testimonies. The parents of the deceased woman, Vinod Singh and Surendri, explicitly stated that their daughter had never been harassed for dowry. They testified that Chanchal died from natural causes after developing a severe lung infection. The court subsequently declared both parents as hostile witnesses.
The situation worsened for the prosecution when the complainant himself, Narvar Singh, corroborated his elder brother's statement. Singh admitted that he had merely signed a blank piece of paper without understanding the contents of the FIR. He further asserted that his niece died of natural causes and was never subjected to any form of dowry-related torture or harassment.
Court's Ruling and Legal Reasoning
In his ruling, Judge Saurabh Dwivedi ordered both accused individuals to furnish personal bonds of Rs 25,000 each, along with one surety of equivalent amount. More significantly, the judge directed that a separate complaint be registered against the complainant, Narvar Singh, under Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code for providing false evidence in court, given the substantial discrepancy between his initial police statement and his courtroom testimony.
The court extensively referenced a 2015 Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma vs State of Uttar Pradesh. Judge Dwivedi emphasized that a presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act can only be made against the accused if the court establishes that the deceased died due to dowry-related reasons within seven years of marriage under unusual circumstances, and that the death resulted directly from cruelty or harassment linked to dowry demands immediately preceding the death.
"As far as the question of forming a presumption against the accused under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 304B IPC, is concerned, the case does not prove an unnatural death, nor has the prosecution proven the fact of harassment for dowry or the demand immediately before the death. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is not appropriate to form a presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act," the court ruled definitively.
Implications and Aftermath
This ruling highlights the critical importance of witness credibility and consistent testimony in dowry death cases. The complete turnaround of all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the victim's own parents, created an insurmountable obstacle for the prosecution. The case serves as a stark reminder of the legal complexities surrounding dowry harassment allegations and the necessity for concrete, corroborated evidence to secure convictions.
The court's decision to pursue false evidence charges against the complainant underscores the judicial system's growing intolerance for fabricated or inconsistent testimonies that waste court resources and potentially harm innocent individuals. This aspect of the ruling may have broader implications for how similar cases are investigated and prosecuted in the future.
