Ingredients of Section 498 A IPC should be proved beyond reasonable doubt for conviction: Supreme Court of India
The ingredients of Section 498­A IPC have to be proved against the accused by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to upheld conviction. This was held in the case of  Nimay Sah v. State of Jharkhand, [Criminal Appeal No.211 of 2011], by Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana in the Supreme Court of India. The deceased in the present case was married to the accused. She was harassed for the demand of dowry of Rs.10000 by the accused persons. Devendra Shah who is the complainant and father of the deceased went to her matrimonial home to pacify the in-laws and assured them of the payment of the said amount. Eventually, when the harassment did not stop, the complainant sent his son, to the deceased’s matrimonial home who brought her back to her parental home. The day on which the event happened, the accused husband went to the deceased’s parental home and took her for a morning walk. When confronted about the whereabouts of the deceased, he said that the deceased was attending the call of nature and would be back soon. He left thereafter. When the deceased did not return after an hour, the complainant started searching for her and she was ultimately found dead, near the canal with strangulation marks on her neck. An FIR was registered against the accused persons under Section 304B read with Section 109 IPC. The Trial Court relying upon the submissions of the prosecution convicted the accused persons under Sections, 304, 498, and 34 IPC. the accused person appealed before the High Court. The High Court on analysis of evidence found it to be consistent and corroborative, thereby, confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court. On an appeal filed by the original accused before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution story comprises vague allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent state stressed the fact of concurrent conviction and argued that there existed sufficient evidence to prove the culpability of the appellant-accused. The Court observed that apart from these vague allegations, no specific instance of hostile attitude or persistent demands of dowry have been pointed out by any of these witnesses. Additionally, the brother of the deceased has admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased used to write him letters from her matrimonial place and none of them mention any harassment on account of the demand of dowry. Thus the ingredients of Section 498 IPC have not been proved against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, there is nothing on record to convict the appellant­accused for the charge under Section 498­A IPC.  The order passed by the High Court was set aside and the appellant-accused was acquitted of all charges. Click here to view the Judgment     
JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment No. 235 1998 45 1998 dated 09.05.2001 and upheld the The present appeal pertains to Nimay Sah accused no.3 who is the elder brother of the deceased’s husband Gora Sah accused no.1. The present appellant­accused has suffered conviction along with accused no.1 Gora Sah husband of the deceased and accused no.2 Nitai Sah father­ The deceased Asha Kumari had been married to accused no.1 Gora Sah and had been living in her matrimonial home. As per the prosecution story she was harassed for demand of dowry of Rs. 10 000 ­ by the accused persons. This demand was originally made to her father Devendra Sah the complainant at the time of her vidai ceremony. Owing to her complaints of harassment her father Devendra Sahwent to her matrimonial home to pacify her in­laws and the harassment did not stop the complainant sent his son Accused no.1 Gora Sah husband of the deceased went to deceased’s parental home on 18.02.1998. On the fateful day i.e. 20.02.1998 he took the deceased for a morning walk. Having come back alone after an hour he hurriedly packed his belongings to leave. When confronted about the whereabouts of the deceased he said that the soon. He left thereafter. When the deceased did not return she was ultimately found dead near the canal with strangulation marks on her neck. An FIR was registered against the accused persons under Section 304­B read with A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 304­B read with Section 313 CrPC denied all the evidence tendered by the court relying upon the prosecution version convicted the consistent and corroborative thereby confirmed the judgment persons has been confirmed accused no.3 Nimay Sah The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant­ the prosecution story comprises of vague allegations unsubstantiated by evidence. The entire family of accused no.1 Gora Sah husband of the deceased has been roped in this case. Thus the conviction of the appellant­accused Heard the learned counsel for the parties through the time of vidai ceremony and subsequently harassment on testimonies of Shyam Sunder SahMunna SahChampa Devi and Devendra Sah to uphold 10 000 ­. However in his deposition the appellant­accused is and their family members. Apart from this witness Shyam Sunder Sah Munna Sah and Champa Devi P.W.9) depose that the deceased was being troubled at her It ought to be noted that apart from these vague allegations no specific instance of hostile attitude or these witnesses. Further Shyam Sunder Sahbrother of the deceased has admitted in his cross­examination that place and that none of the letters mention any harassment All other independent witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story. In fact even Panchanan Sah who is the paternal uncle of the witnesses the ingredients of Section 498­A IPC have not been In light of the above we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant­accused cannot be sustained Accordingly the judgment and order dated 11.02.2010 Appeal No. 176 of 2001 is hereby set aside and the The appeal is accordingly allowed in the aforementioned terms. Pending applications if any shall also