In a recent legal case, the High Court conducted a thorough analysis of the evidence presented and concluded that the accused could not be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. This decision highlights the critical role of the court’s legal analysis in ensuring justice is served based on concrete evidence and legal standards.
Facts
- The High Court analyzed the evidence and found it consistent and corroborative.
- The judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court was confirmed.
- The accused were charged under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC.
- The accused denied all evidence, claimed false implication, and pleaded innocence.
- The trial court convicted the accused based on the prosecution’s version.
- Gora Sah was sentenced to RI for 10 years under Section 304-B/34 IPC and RI for 3 years under Section 498-A/34 IPC.
- Nitai Sah and Nimay Sah were sentenced to RI for 3 years under Section 498-A/34 IPC.
- Nimay Sah was acquitted of charges under Section 304-B/34 IPC.
- The appeal arises from the High Court’s judgment confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC.
- The present appeal pertains to Nimay Sah, the elder brother of the deceased’s husband, Gora Sah.
- The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant-accused along with other accused persons.
- Accused no.1, Gora Sah, husband of the deceased, has been convicted along with accused no.2 and the present appellant-accused.
- The deceased was found dead near the canal with strangulation marks on her neck.
- An FIR was registered against the accused persons under Section 304-B read with Section 109 IPC.
- The deceased had been married to accused no.1, Gora Sah.
- Accused no.1 went to the deceased’s parental home on 18.02.1998.
- Accused no.3, Nimay Sah, brother of the deceased’s husband, has filed the appeal.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- The conviction of the appellant-accused cannot be sustained.
- The entire family of accused no.1, Gora Sah, husband of the deceased, has been roped in this case.
- None of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution story.
- The prosecution story comprises of vague allegations unsubstantiated by evidence.
- The High Court considered the testimonies of key witnesses to establish the harassment for dowry – Shyam Sunder Sah (P.W.7), Munna Sah (P.W.8), Champa Devi (P.W.9), and Devendra Sah (P.W.10).
- The learned counsel for the respondent-State emphasized the concurrent conviction and presented sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused.
- The appellant-accused’s involvement was linked to the demand for dowry of Rs. 10,000 during the vidai ceremony followed by harassment upon non-payment.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- Devendra Sah (P.W.10) alleged demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000 from the appellant-accused.
- No specific instance of hostile attitude or persistent demands of dowry identified by witnesses.
- Other witnesses mentioned general trouble faced by deceased without directly naming the appellant-accused.
- Witnesses turning hostile and not corroborating prosecution’s version.
- Even key witness Panchanan Sah (P.W.2) did not support prosecution’s story.
- No mention of harassment for dowry in letters written by the deceased to her brother.
- The ingredients of Section 498-A IPC have not been proved against the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt based on oral testimonies of 6 witnesses.
- There is nothing on record to convict the appellant-accused for the charge under Section 498-A IPC.
- The conviction of the appellant-accused cannot be sustained.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- The judgment and order dated 11.02.2010 by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2001 is set aside.
- The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charges against him.
- The appellant-accused was enlarged on bail on 17.09.2010.
- The appeal is allowed and the bail bonds are discharged.
- Any pending applications are also disposed of.
Case Title: NIMAY SAH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND (2020 INSC 670)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000211-000211 / 2011
