Can a Husband Be Convicted for Dowry Death Despite Strong Defence Evidence and an Exculpatory Dying Declaration?
Case Name: Brajesh Kumar @ Birjesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar
Date of Judgment: 13 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 695; Criminal Appeal No. 3117 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 474 of 2026)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Held: The Supreme Court held that a conviction for dowry death and cruelty cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and credible defence evidence creates a probable hypothesis of innocence. The Court reiterated that defence evidence deserves the same judicial consideration as prosecution evidence and cannot be viewed with suspicion merely because it emanates from the accused. It further observed that an exculpatory dying declaration, though requiring careful scrutiny, may corroborate the defence where the surrounding circumstances support the version of accidental death. Finding serious lapses in investigation, absence of a post-mortem, failure to produce material evidence, and unreliable proof of dowry demand, the Court acquitted the appellant after nearly twenty-five years of prosecution.
Summary: The appellant was prosecuted in connection with the death of his wife, who sustained burn injuries at her matrimonial home in 2000 and later died in a hospital. The prosecution alleged that she had been subjected to continuous cruelty and dowry demands of ₹50,000, ultimately leading to her dowry death under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case witnessed an unusual procedural history involving two charge sheets, separate trials arising from the same FIR, and eventual acquittal of all other family members, while the husband alone was convicted. The High Court, instead of deciding the appeal on merits, remanded the matter to the trial court, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court first examined the procedural irregularities surrounding the investigation and held that although the Superintendent of Police had improperly directed further investigation, the cognizance taken by the trial court was not rendered illegal. Proceeding to examine the evidence itself, the Court found glaring deficiencies in the prosecution case. No post-mortem examination was conducted, the investigating officer failed to collect crucial evidence from the hospitals where the deceased was treated, and the prosecution did not produce the dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate. The oral evidence regarding dowry demand consisted of general and repetitive allegations unsupported by independent witnesses or surrounding circumstances.
In contrast, the defence produced substantial documentary and oral evidence showing that the husband had immediately taken his wife for medical treatment, informed her family without delay, incurred expenses for her treatment, and had made financial investments jointly with her. Independent witnesses, including doctors and the Executive Magistrate, proved that the deceased had made a dying declaration stating that the burns were accidental while boiling milk and that neither her husband nor her in-laws were responsible. The Court observed that even if the dying declaration was viewed cautiously because it was made while the deceased remained under the care of her husband, it nevertheless corroborated the defence version. Emphasising that defence evidence must receive equal judicial consideration and that suspicion can never substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the offences alleged.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges, setting aside both the Sessions Court’s conviction and the High Court’s order remanding the matter for a fresh trial. Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove cruelty or dowry death beyond reasonable doubt, the Court directed that the appellant’s bail bonds stand cancelled and ordered his immediate release if he was still in custody and not required in any other case. The Court also criticised the casual manner in which the investigation and appellate proceedings had been conducted, observing that they had resulted in a serious travesty of justice.