Emotions and sentiments should not “sway” a judge to decide the fate of any crime, howsoever gruesome the incident may be, ruled Supreme Court in a recent judgement. The advice is well timed and comes as a fitting response to the debate generated nationwide when every time a popular personality gets acquitted (Bollywood actor Salman Khan’s acquittal in a case causing death due to drink driving) or when an accused of a high-profile crime does not get adequately punished (the juvenile offender being released in the Nirbhaya case).
The judgement by the highest court came in a case where a man charged of his wife’s murder during their honeymoon trip was acquitted after the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the wife’s death itself. The case had generated headlines as the victim hailed from a royal family and whose father was a judge serving in the subordinate judiciary in Bihar.
Reversing the order of the Patna High Court that confirmed the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the man - Rajiv Singh under the charge of dowry death (IPC Section 304B), the apex bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and Amitava Roy said, “Distraught though one would be, by the calamitous incident, judicial adjudication has to be assuredly guided by the recognised legal dicta and cannot be swayed by emotional or sentimental surges.”
The prosecution case fell through in the Supreme Court which found the dead body to be not that of the victim. Faulting the shoddy probe by the investigating agency, the bench scoffed at the prosecution story which gathered no clinching proof to suggest there was dowry demand and that the death was caused as a result of such demand.
The facts of the case unfolded thus. On April 29, 2007 Rajiv and Archana got married. She was a practicing advocate. Since she was taking a competitive examination, the honeymoon plans got delayed till August 10, 2007 - the day of results in which she was unsuccessful. After spending four days in Darjeeling, they booked the Capital Express train for returning to Bihar. After having dinner, the two retired for sleep.
The wife reportedly went missing from the train. Failing to find her, the frantic husband lodged a complaint with Railway Police at Mokamah. A woman’s body was discovered close to the place where the train crossed that night and it was assumed that the wife was thrown off the train. The girl’s parents suspected the husband. He was accused of ill-treating her over repeated dowry demands.
On analysing the same evidence that led the trial court and High Court to convict the man, the Supreme Court discovered that the missing woman’s clothes did not match the clothes of the dead body. Even the girl’s relative who first saw the body and claimed it was not Archana was not added as witness. No efforts were made to discover her personal diary to unlock the mystery. The DNA test, the clinching evidence suffered lacunae as the test was conducted at a private lab and results sent directly to police. Even the man who deposed in Court claimed he had no expertise in DNA testing.
Jotting the “gaping cracks” in investigation, Court landed the blame on police terming the probe “shoddy, casual, laconical and insensitive”. Acquitting the husband of all charges, the bench said, “Justice has to be administered in accordance with law and uninfluenced by individual predilections, notions, and prejudices…the manifest defects in investigation in the case demonstrate an inexcusable failure of authorities concerned to abide by this paramount imperative.”