Kolkata: Nearly 24 years after a trial court convicted a man for cruelty to his wife, the Calcutta High Court has set aside the verdict, holding that the victim’s alleged statement “I will be dead” did not constitute a dying declaration in the eye of law and could not form the basis of conviction.
Allowing the appeal against the 2002 judgment, Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das said the prosecution had failed to prove cruelty beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction rested on a flawed appreciation of evidence.
The case related to the death of a young woman who consumed poison, with conflicting accounts emerging during trial about the exact place of occurrence.
Her family alleged that she had been subjected to physical and mental torture over dowry demands. While the sessions court had acquitted the husband of dowry death, it convicted him for cruelty.
The High Court found that the trial court erred in treating the victim’s alleged statement to her parents as a dying declaration. The mother admitted in evidence that her daughter had said nothing except “I will be dead” before being taken to the hospital.
Holding that such a vague expression, without any reference to the cause of death or attribution of blame, does not amount to a dying declaration, the court said there was in fact no dying declaration in the eye of the law.
The court also found significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The victim’s brother, who lodged the complaint, stated that the husband generally behaved properly and that no prior complaint of torture had been made.
He also confirmed that the husband was not present at home at the time of the incident.
The father’s allegations of dowry-related harassment were found to be vague and unsupported by specific details.
He admitted that money was paid to the husband’s brother for medical treatment and not as dowry and that no complaint had been lodged earlier.
The court noted that the mother had stated she filed the case “out of grudge” after her daughter’s death, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
The court also noted the absence of any forensic report confirming the nature of the poison, failure to seize any poison container and lack of evidence regarding the death of the minor child. No independent witness supported the allegations.