1993 'Dowry Death' Case | Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal Of 3 Accused Based On 'Suspicious' Viscera Examination Report

Upholding the trial court's 1997 Judgment and order acquitting the accused, a bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that the evidence regarding the alleged demand of dowry and matrimonial cruelty meted out to had rightly been found to be suffering from discrepancy and untrustworthiness.

Though the prosecution sought to prove that the in-laws of the deceased had administered poison to her, the trial Court recorded (and the High Court approved this finding) that the FIR in the case was lodged with significant delay on March 4, 1993, which allowed the informant (father of the deceased), to tamper with the viscera report potentially.

Essentially, the Trial court had found that the jar (sent for viscera examination) actually contained the viscera of some other person (one Jai Kishore), not the deceased in this case, and that is how a favourable report was obtained that the viscera contained Aluminium Phosphate poison. This was done to prove that the deceased actually died of poisoning.

“The circumstances in which viscera examined by the deceases surfaced or highly doubtful. The doctors who attended the deceased on the date of incident when she was seriously ill have unambiguously stated that they found no symptom of poisoning on her person, and cause of death could not be ascertained in postmortem examination and on this factual situation it is difficult to hold that death of deceased was unnatural or homicidal,” the High Court concluded in its 28-page judgment.

The case in brief

As per the prosecution's case, Informant (Narendra Pal Singh), who, while working as Chief Food Inspector in Aligarh, learned about his daughter Alpana's sudden death on February 15, 1993. She had died admittedly after nine and half months of her marriage.

Upon arriving at the deceased's matrimonial home, the informant saw her dead body. As per him (father of the deceased), her tongue was stuck between the teeth, her lips had become blue, and blood was coagulated under the lips. When he asked about the state of things, her inlaws said that she had caught a light fever and was vomiting.

Singh alleged that his daughter's death was due to ongoing dowry demands and mistreatment by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law. He reported the suspicious death to local police, who conducted a postmortem revealing an unnatural and suspicious death.

However, no action was taken until Singh filed a written report with the Superintendent of Police, leading to an FIR on March 16, 1993. The police subsequently investigated, collected witness statements, and submitted a chargesheet against the accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC.

The trial court recorded the acquittal of the accused-appellants with a finding that by prosecution evidence, the allegation of demand of dowry and practising cruelty against the deceased had not been proved.

The Trial court also gave a finding that it was not proved that the death of the deceased occurred in unnatural circumstances; therefore, it was concluded that the benefit of presumption under Section 113- A and 113-B IPC could not be extended to the prosecution's side.

Importantly, in its order, the trial Court found that the viscera examination report did not conclusively prove that the chemical examiner at Forensic Science Laboratory Agra examined the deceased's viscera. The court added that the viscera examined by the lab belonged to another person (and not to the deceased), and the said viscera was deliberately sent to the lab to obtain a report that could favour the prosecution's case.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, a Government Appeal was filed in 1997. Subsequently, the informant/defacto complainant filed a Criminal Revision in the same year.

During the pendency of the criminal appeal, the respondent/accused No.1, Ativeer Singh, and respondent/accused No.2, Smt. Vimlesh, both passed away. Consequently, the appeal regarding these respondents was abated, and the current appeal and criminal revision remained pending only against the 3 accused Kumari Archana, Ajai Pratap Singh, and Udai Pratap Singh (husband of the deceased).

High Court's observations

At the outset, while examining the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Court found force in the trial court's finding that the prosecution tampered with the deceased's viscera to obtain a favourable chemical report indicating the presence of Aluminium Phosphate poison in the viscera.

The High Court also noted that neither the doctor who conducted a postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased nor the defence witness doctor who attended to the deceased on the date of the incident when she was seriously ill stated in their statement that they found it to be a suspected case of poisoning.

“Therefore, only on the basis of viscera examination report which is itself shrouded with suspicion, categorical finding cannot be recorded that the deceased was administered poison like Aluminium Phosphide which resulted in her death,” the Court said.

The Court also found force in the recording of the trial court that the FIR was highly belated and in first report filed by the informant with police just after arriving at the place of incident on hearing the death of his daughter at her matrimonial place, no allegations or accusation regarding demand of dowry or matrimonial cruelty, were mentioned.

Against this backdrop, the Court upheld the acquittal of the accused respondents and dismissed the government appeal and the revision plea moved by the informant.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: AGA VS Misra, Alok Ranjan Mishra, GS Chaturvedi, Samit Gopal, Tej Pal, VS Singh

Counsel for Respondent: Devendra Dahma, AD Giri, Apul Mishra, Lav Srivastava, PN Mishra, SDN Singh

Case title - State of U.P. vs. Ativeer Singh And Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 492

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 492

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment