Dowry Death Case Overturned: Supreme Court Acquits Husband in Usha’s Tragic Death

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated April 9, 2019, set aside the conviction of the appellant, Sham Lal, in a dowry death case. The case, Sham Lal vs. The State of Haryana, revolved around the tragic death of Usha and her infant daughter due to burns. While the Trial Court had acquitted Sham Lal and his family, the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned the acquittal and convicted him under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, citing a lack of sufficient evidence to prove cruelty and dowry harassment.

Background of the Case

According to the First Information Report (FIR) filed by Pawan Kumar (PW-9), the brother of the deceased Usha, she was married to Sham Lal in December 1990. Within two months of marriage, Sham Lal allegedly demanded Rs.1,00,000 as dowry. Usha’s family managed to pay Rs.50,000, but she continued to face harassment from her husband, mother-in-law, and brothers-in-law, namely Ganga Devi, Krishan Lal, and Ved Prakash.

On September 28, 1992, Usha and her infant daughter tragically died due to burn injuries. When Usha’s family arrived at Sham Lal’s house, they found both mother and child dead. The police seized a three-liter kerosene can, burnt hair, and pieces of burnt cloth from the scene.

Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and, alternatively, under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

Trial Court’s Decision

The Trial Court acquitted all four accused, ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove that Usha was murdered.
Regarding the charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, the court examined the prosecution’s claim that Sham Lal had demanded Rs.1,00,000 and had received Rs.50,000 from Usha’s family.
Pawan Kumar (PW-9) testified that he and his brothers contributed to the dowry payment. However, when cross-examined, Maya Chand Kalia (DW-3), the Branch Manager of the Cooperative Bank, revealed that Pawan Kumar became a bank member only on March 7, 1992 and took a loan of Rs.10,000 only on June 25, 1992.
This contradicted Pawan Kumar’s claim that he had taken a loan in February 1991 to pay Sham Lal.
Further, the trial court noted that Sham Lal and Usha were living separately on the first floor of the house and even had separate ration cards.
A dispute between Sham Lal and Usha had been referred to a Panchayat on October 13, 1991, where a document (Ex.-DA) was executed stating that any future disputes would be settled by the Panchayat.

Based on these findings, the Trial Court acquitted Sham Lal and his family.

High Court’s Reversal

On appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the acquittal of Sham Lal’s mother and brothers but reversed Sham Lal’s acquittal.
The High Court held that the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence, particularly the testimony of Pawan Kumar (PW-9) and Ganga Ram (PW-11).
The High Court concluded that the family had indeed paid Rs.50,000 in dowry and that Usha had been subjected to cruelty, thereby convicting Sham Lal under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentencing him to seven years imprisonment.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reiterated the well-established legal principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless it is wholly unsustainable or perverse.
It noted that the High Court had ignored critical findings of the Trial Court.
The Court pointed out that Pawan Kumar’s claim about raising a loan in 1991 was clearly false, as proven by DW-3’s testimony that the loan was taken only in 1992.
There was no direct evidence proving that Sham Lal or his family had subjected Usha to cruelty.
The Trial Court’s findings were not perverse but rather based on a detailed examination of the evidence, and the High Court had erred in reversing them.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed Sham Lal’s appeal and set aside his conviction.
It ruled that there was no clear evidence of dowry harassment or cruelty.
Sham Lal was acquitted, and his seven-year imprisonment sentence was overturned.

Legal Implications

The ruling reinforces the principle that mere allegations of dowry harassment must be backed by clear and convincing evidence.
It sets a precedent that appellate courts should not interfere with acquittals unless there is a glaring miscarriage of justice.
The case highlights the importance of scrutinizing financial transactions and witness credibility in dowry death cases.
The judgment serves as a caution against reversing acquittals based on weak or contradictory evidence.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the necessity for robust and credible evidence in dowry death cases. While the law against dowry harassment is crucial for protecting women, courts must ensure that convictions are based on solid proof rather than assumptions. The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned without substantial reasons, safeguarding the rights of the accused while maintaining justice for the victim.

Petitioner Name: Sham Lal.
Respondent Name: The State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Haryana.
Judgment Date: 09-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sham Lal vs The State of Haryana Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Dowry Cases
See all petitions in Domestic Violence
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category