In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, dismissed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash a charge-sheet and summoning order related to a dowry death case. The case, numbered 13307 of 2020, involves allegations against Mritunjay Tiwari and six others, who are accused of dowry death under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The applicant, Mritunjay Tiwari, married Manju Tiwari in 2014. On September 23, 2016, Manju allegedly went missing from her marital home. Despite extensive searches by both parties, her whereabouts remained unknown. Subsequently, the complainant, Manju’s father, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC on January 11, 2017, alleging that his daughter had died under suspicious circumstances and that her body was concealed by the accused. An FIR was lodged on November 25, 2016, leading to a prolonged investigation marred by accusations of improper conduct by the police.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Charge-Sheet Without Corpus Delicti: A significant legal issue raised in the case was whether the absence of the deceased’s body (corpus delicti) invalidates the charges of dowry death against the accused.
2. Alleged Procedural Lapses by the Police: The complainant argued that the investigation was not conducted fairly, leading to multiple court orders for further investigation and the eventual filing of the charge-sheet.
3. Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents: The defence contended that the case lacked sufficient evidence to support the charge of dowry death, relying on Supreme Court precedents to argue that mere suspicion cannot replace solid evidence.
Decision of the Court:
The Court rejected the application to quash the charge-sheet, stating that the absence of the dead body does not, in itself, entitle the accused to an acquittal. Citing Supreme Court rulings in Sanjay Rajak v. State of Bihar (2019) and Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991), Justice Shamshery observed:
“It is not an invariable rule of criminal jurisprudence that the failure of the police to recover the corpus delicti will render the prosecution case doubtful entitling the accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt. It is only one of the relevant factors to be considered along with all other attendant facts and circumstances to arrive at a finding based on reasonability and probability based on normal human prudence and behaviour.”
The Court emphasized that the requirement to establish a corpus delicti is not absolute, especially in cases where other compelling evidence exists that indicates the occurrence of a dowry death. The ruling noted:
“A blind adherence to this old ‘body’ doctrine would open the door wide open for many a heinous murderer to escape with impunity simply because they were cunning and clever enough to destroy the body of their victim.”
The Court further stated that the arguments presented by the defense regarding the absence of a body and the supposed absence of material evidence do not suffice to quash the charge-sheet at this stage. The court remarked:
“The Sanjay Rajak (supra) is applicable in full force in present case in support of prosecution case.”
Key Observations of the Court:
– On the Corpus Delicti Doctrine: The court underscored that even if the dead body is not recovered, other circumstantial evidence can suffice to prove a dowry death.
– On the Investigation Process: It acknowledged the complainant’s assertion that the applicants misled him initially by portraying the case as a missing person scenario to delay the filing of the FIR.
– On the Role of the High Court in Quashing Charges: The court reiterated that it could not conduct a “mini-trial” while deciding an application under Section 482 of the CrPC, as held in Priyanka Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand (2024).
Case Status:
The application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the charge-sheet and summoning order has been dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. The accused retain the right to present their arguments during the trial or in the pending discharge applications before the trial court.
Parties Involved:
– Applicants: Mritunjay Tiwari and six others, represented by advocates Anand Pal Singh and Rajiv Lochan Shukla.
– Opposite Party: The State of Uttar Pradesh and another, represented by advocates Bishram Tiwari, G.A., and Vimal Kumar Pandey.
