Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in Dowry Death Case, Faults High Court for Reversing Trial Judge Without Finding Perversity

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar quashed a Himachal Pradesh High Court conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A, holding that the appellate court cited facts absent from the record.

The Supreme Court on 3 September 2026 restored the acquittal of Sanjay Kumar, who had been convicted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court for abetment of suicide and cruelty under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A division bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar found that the High Court reversed the Sessions Court’s reasoned acquittal without recording any finding that the trial court’s view was perverse or impossible on the evidence. The High Court had gone further and relied on alleged acts — the appellant abusing and dragging the victim before her mother and sisters — for which no evidence existed on record. In quashing the High Court’s judgment dated 17 August 2016, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the cardinal principles governing appeals against acquittal and the specific intent required to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Penal Code.

The Marriage, the Death, and the Charges

Sanjay Kumar married Lata in January 2008. On the same day, Lata’s younger sister Manju was also married. The prosecution alleged that after the marriage, the appellant’s mother Kaushalya and sisters Neelam and Reema regularly harassed the victim. A younger sister of the victim, Diksha, and another sister, Mamta, were said to have witnessed the harassment during visits to the matrimonial home.

In July 2009, the victim gave birth to a daughter. On 16 November 2009, the victim’s family received a phone call informing them that she had consumed poison. She was taken to hospital and died during treatment. A police complaint was lodged and, after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant (A1), his mother (A2), and his two sisters (A3 and A4) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code.

The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, including the victim’s relatives, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, a Medical Officer, a pharmacist, and the Investigating Officer. All accused denied the charges.

Sessions Court Acquits; High Court Reverses Only as to the Appellant

By judgment dated 10 June 2010, the Sessions Court acquitted all four accused. It found that the evidence was mostly hearsay and cast in general terms. No injuries were found on the body of the victim, no report of physical torture had been made to any authority, and the alleged demands of dowry were not proved. Crucially, the trial judge had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses as they deposed.

The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged the acquittals before the High Court. The High Court took a split view: it confirmed the acquittals of A2 to A4 but reversed the appellant’s acquittal. It held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was mentally and physically harassed by the appellant, and that these acts drove her to suicide within a short duration of the marriage. The appellant was convicted under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and four years respectively, with both sentences to run concurrently. He was also directed to pay fines of ₹5,000 and ₹10,000 for the two offences.

What the Evidence Actually Showed

The Supreme Court examined the prosecution evidence in detail. PW1 — Kamla Devi, the victim’s mother — testified that her daughter used to call and say she was being tortured and kept hungry. Yet in her own examination-in-chief she admitted she never informed any authority. In cross-examination she admitted that whenever her daughter and the appellant visited, they appeared happy. Omissions surfaced: a specific incident of the appellant slapping the victim in her presence, and a telephone call about torture, were not reflected in her earlier police statement.

Other relatives — PW4 Manju, PW5 Jaidev, PW7 Mamta, and PW8 Diksha — also deposed in general terms. Significant omissions emerged in their cross-examinations as well. Each admitted that on visits to the matrimonial home, they were well received and treated properly. None described any specific incident of torture or harassment.

PW2 Asha Parihar, a neighbour, stated that all the accused had good social standing and that she had never heard of any dispute between the victim and the appellant. She also testified that the appellant had tried his best to save the victim’s life, and that the victim appeared to have taken poison by mistake.

The pharmacist, PW10 Avinash Parihar, deposed that on 16 November 2009 at 9.00 a.m. the appellant came to his shop, said the victim was unwell, and requested him to come with medicines. PW10 administered an injection at the house. The victim told him she had taken liquid from a bottle thinking it was medicine; when he identified the empty bottle as poison, he immediately advised the appellant to take her to hospital. The appellant called for a vehicle and shifted the victim to hospital without delay. The post-mortem report confirmed death from ingestion of a poisonous substance, with no injuries on the body.

The High Court’s Error: Evidence Not on Record

The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s entire discussion spanned only two paragraphs. In reversing the acquittal, it observed that the appellant had “abused and dragged the victim in the presence of her mother and sisters.” The Supreme Court, on examining the record, found no such evidence. In fact, the witnesses who would have been present for any such incident had admitted in cross-examination that they had made no such statements to the police.

This defect was not peripheral. An appellate court exercising jurisdiction over an acquittal must, before reversing, record a finding that the trial court either misread the evidence to reach a perverse conclusion or that the conclusion was impossible on the evidence. The High Court recorded no such finding. Its conclusion was, as the bench put it, “totally unsustainable and based on material not available on record.”

The Legal Principles on Appellate Review of Acquittals

The Court traced the settled position to the Privy Council decision in Sheo Swarup and others v. The King-Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227(2), and approved in Bhubneshwar Mandal and others v. The State of Bihar. The Privy Council formulation, quoted by the Supreme Court, identified four considerations an appellate court must weigh before reversing an acquittal: the trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility; the presumption of innocence, not weakened by an acquittal below; the accused’s right to the benefit of doubt; and the appellate court’s inferior position in evaluating demeanour.

The Court also cited State of Uttar Pradesh v. Samman Dass, 1972 INSC 11, which restated that where two views of the evidence are possible, the view favouring the accused should be taken, and that an appellate court must account for the trial judge’s direct observation of witnesses. These principles applied with full force here: the Sessions Court had considered the entire evidence, noted material omissions, and acquitted. The High Court did not engage with any of this reasoning.

No Abetment Established Under Section 306

The Court also addressed the specific legal requirement for an offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code. Referring to its earlier decision in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, 2010 INSC 521, the Court restated that Section 306 requires specific abetment as defined in Section 107 of the Penal Code, with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned. The intention to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide is an essential element; without it, the offence is not made out.

The Court accepted that some matrimonial discord may well have existed. That, however, was not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107. On the contrary, the evidence of the appellant’s conduct on the day of the incident — seeking immediate medical assistance, calling for a vehicle, and rushing the victim to hospital — was inconsistent with any intent to abet her death. The Court found no evidence whatsoever of any act of abetment by the appellant.

Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1108 of 2016. The High Court’s judgment dated 17 August 2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 566 of 2010 was quashed and set aside. Sanjay Kumar was acquitted of all charges framed against him. He had been enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal; his bail bonds stand cancelled.