Can a dowry death conviction survive for decades when the prosecution fails to prove harassment “soon before” the woman’s death? The Allahabad High Court found serious gaps in the evidence and finally acquitted the husband and his relatives 35 years after the case began.

UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has acquitted Shiv Narain @ Surya Narain, Jai Narayan and Pateshwar in a decades-old dowry death case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased woman was subjected to dowry-related cruelty or harassment soon before her death.

The case arose from the death of Urmila, who had married Shiv Narain on May 12, 1987. She went missing on the intervening night of September 19-20, 1991, and her body was recovered from a well near her matrimonial home on September 21. Her father later alleged that she had been harassed for dowry and that the accused had murdered her and thrown her body into the well.

Police registered the FIR on October 2, 1991. The accused were prosecuted under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 120-B IPC. In 1996, the trial court convicted them and imposed, among other sentences, seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC. The appeals then remained pending for years, and the appeals of some other convicts abated after their deaths.

While examining the evidence, the High Court noticed an important inconsistency. Urmila's parents claimed during trial that a scooter had been demanded as dowry, but this specific scooter demand was not mentioned in the FIR or in the statements recorded during investigation. According to the Court, the specific allegation was introduced only when the parents gave evidence before the trial court.

The Court also noted that the alleged scooter demand related to around November 1987, whereas Urmila died in September 1991. Her father admitted that he had visited her matrimonial home about one month before her death, but his evidence did not show that the husband or his relatives demanded dowry from him during that visit.

Significantly, the Court found no complaint made by Urmila during her lifetime alleging dowry harassment. Several close relatives who could have supported the prosecution's allegation were also not examined as witnesses.

The High Court observed:

“Consequently, in the light of the sequence of events of stay of Urmila and absence of any complaint whatsoever during her lifetime, much less in respect of dowry demand, this Court finds that the evidence adduced by prosecution does not prove beyond doubt that the complainant’s daughter was harassed for demand of dowry soon before her death.”

The Court further examined the statutory presumption relating to dowry death under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 133, it held that the prosecution must first establish the foundational requirement of cruelty or harassment connected with a dowry demand soon before the woman's death.

The Court said:

“In other words, the prosecution has to prove cruelty in order to attract Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, and in the absence of any such evidence, the presumption would not be available.”

The High Court also found serious problems with the allegation that Urmila had been murdered and her body thrown into the well. The post-mortem showed a solitary ante-mortem head injury, and the doctor stated that such an injury could have resulted if she had fallen into the well and struck her head against the tubewell pipe.

The Court noted that the prosecution had not established the manner or place of the alleged murder. There was also no medical evidence showing a post-mortem injury supporting the allegation that her body had been thrown into the well after murder.

Importantly, no charge under Section 302 IPC for murder had been framed, nor had the prosecution filed a charge sheet for that offence. Yet, the trial court proceeded on the finding that the accused had committed murder. The High Court termed this approach “apparently erroneous in law and perverse.”

The Court also held that the Section 201 IPC conviction for causing disappearance of evidence could not survive when the underlying allegation of murder itself was unsupported by evidence.

As regards Pateshwar, the Court found no allegation that he had harassed Urmila for dowry. He was residing separately in another village. Similarly, the Court found the conviction of Pateshwar and Jai Narayan on the basis of an alleged criminal conspiracy for dowry death unsustainable on the evidence available.

After examining the prosecution evidence, the High Court concluded that it contained material discrepancies and inconsistencies and created serious doubt about the case. The charges had not been proved beyond the required standard.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the 1996 conviction and sentence and acquitted Shiv Narain @ Surya Narain, Jai Narayan and Pateshwar of all charges.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The prosecution could not prove dowry harassment “soon before” death, yet the husband and relatives carried the case for decades.
• The alleged scooter demand was missing from the FIR and investigation statements and surfaced only during trial.
• The High Court noted there was no complaint by the woman during her lifetime alleging dowry harassment.
• No Section 302 IPC murder charge was framed, yet the trial court treated it as murder. The High Court called the approach erroneous and perverse.
• Acquitted after decades. The court can clear a man’s name, but it cannot return the years, money, peace and reputation lost in the process.