Courts Should Be Sensitive In Cases Of Crimes Against Women, Ensure Criminals Don't Escape On Technicalities: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of a husband in a case related to the murder of his wife and domestic cruelty against her. It reiterated the crucial role that courts play in ensuring justice, especially in cases involving crimes against women. The Court issued a reminder for courts to adopt a practical perspective when evaluating evidence. It underscored the importance of sensitivity in such cases to ensure that justice prevails and wrongdoers are held accountable.

Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment noted “The role of courts in such circumstances assumes greater importance, and it is expected that the courts would deal with such cases in a more realistic manner and not allow the criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities, perfunctory investigation or insignificant lacunas in the evidence as otherwise the criminals would receive encouragement and the victims of crime would be totally discouraged by the crime going unpunished. The courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women.”

The Supreme Court cited a notable observation from the case of Dharam Das Wadhwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh stating that “The rule of benefit of reasonable doubt does not imply a frail willow bending to every whiff of hesitancy. Judges are made of sterner stuff and must take a practical view of legitimate inferences flowing from evidence, circumstantial or direct.”

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Prashant Mishra was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Uttarakhand HC which affirmed the conviction of appellant(husband) under section 302 and 498-A IPC and mother-in-law under section 498-A IPC respectively. The convictions related to the murder and cruelty against the husband's wife.

The tragic story revolved around Sudha(deceased) whose marriage took place on 12th December 1997 with Balvir Singh(appellant). It was alleged that soon after their marriage, the appellant along with his mother, Maheshwari Devi, began subjecting Sudha to various forms of harassment and relentlessly demanded a dowry of one lakh rupees in cash.

She bravely communicated her plight to her father through letters, detailing the ongoing harassment and dowry demands. As per the prosecution, the matter took a terrifying turn on 9th May 2007 when the appellant took her from Kotdwar to Mangolpuri, Delhi, against her will. Unfortunately, on 13 May 2007, Sudha died and there were reddish marks around her neck.

Faced with the sudden loss of his daughter under suspicious circumstances, his father moved an application before Judicial Magistrate First Class urging the police to register an FIR (First Information Report). Subsequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 302 (murder), 498-A (cruelty towards a married woman), read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial court and the High Court affirmed the conviction of the husband under section 302 and section 498-A IPC and his mother under section 498-A IPC.

The Supreme Court in appeal noted that the woman's death was attributed to poisoning, specifically aluminum phosphide. The court viewed with suspicion, the conduct of the appellant(husband) who did not inform the deceased's family members about her death.

After careful deliberation, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant since the prosecution had presented more than a prima facie case, allowing it to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, thereby shifting the burden to the accused husband to explain the events surrounding his wife's death.

Therefore, the appeals were dismissed by the court.

Also from the judgment - Principles Of Applying Section 106 Of Evidence Act : Supreme Court Explains

Case title: Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation:  2023 LiveLaw (SC) 861

Click here to read the judgment