No Dead Body Needed To Prove Murder In Dowry Death Case: Allahabad High Court

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court, led by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, rejected an application under Section 482 of the CrPC, which sought to quash a charge sheet and summoning order in a dowry death case. The case, numbered 13307 of 2020, involves Mritunjay Tiwari and six others, accused under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 201 of the IPC, along with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

 

The case traces back to the 2014 marriage of Mritunjay Tiwari and Manju Tiwari. On September 23, 2016, Manju went missing from her marital home. Despite efforts by both families, her whereabouts were never discovered. Manju's father filed an application on January 11, 2017, under Section 156(3) CrPC, alleging that she had died under suspicious circumstances and that her body had been concealed by the accused. An FIR was filed in November 2016, but the investigation faced criticism for alleged procedural lapses.

 

Key Legal Issues:

 

1. Validity of Charges Without a Body: One major issue was whether the absence of the victim's body (corpus delicti) could invalidate the dowry death charges.

 

 

2. Police Misconduct: The complainant claimed that the investigation was not conducted fairly, leading to several court-ordered further investigations.

 

 

3. Supreme Court Precedents: The defense argued that there was insufficient evidence, citing Supreme Court rulings to claim that suspicion alone cannot support a conviction.

 

 

 

Court’s Decision:

 

The court dismissed the application to quash the charge sheet, stating that the absence of a body does not automatically acquit the accused. Citing precedents from Sanjay Rajak v. State of Bihar (2019) and Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991), Justice Shamshery noted that failing to recover the body is only one factor in determining the case, and other circumstantial evidence could still support the charges. The court rejected the defense’s argument that lack of evidence justified dismissing the charge sheet.

 

The court emphasized that adhering strictly to the “body doctrine” could allow some perpetrators to evade justice if they successfully concealed a body. The ruling reaffirmed that the investigation and the gathered evidence were sufficient to proceed with the case.

 

Conclusion:

 

The High Court refused to quash the charge sheet, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The accused retain the right to defend themselves during the trial or seek relief through discharge applications in the trial court.

 

This case, involving Mritunjay Tiwari and six others, is now set to move forward in court, with both sides preparing for trial.

 

Advotalks: Talk To Lawyers https://www.advotalks.com/

for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel 

https://www.youtube.com/@advotalkslegal