Ravinder Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi [March 6, 2024]
Background
Ravinder Kumar was convicted by the trial court for offences including murder (Section 302 IPC), dowry death (Section 304B IPC), and cruelty (Section 498A IPC) relating to the death of his wife. The conviction was upheld by the Delhi High Court. Kumar appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the findings, particularly the conviction for murder.
Key Legal Issue
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had established the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt, especially since the case was based on circumstantial evidence. The Court examined whether the chain of circumstances was complete and unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused, as required by law.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Court reaffirmed the principle that the accused "must be" and not merely "may be" guilty before a conviction can be sustained, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
It scrutinized the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove the charge of murder against Kumar.
The Court noted that while there was evidence of cruelty and dowry demands, the evidence did not conclusively prove that Kumar had committed murder. The benefit of doubt, therefore, had to be given to the accused.
However, the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions under Section 304B (dowry death) and Section 498A (cruelty).
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, holding that the prosecution had not met the stringent standard required for conviction on circumstantial evidence.
The convictions under Section 304B (dowry death) and Section 498A (cruelty) were upheld, as the evidence established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry by the accused.
The Court also considered the fact that Kumar had already undergone a lengthy period of incarceration as a relevant factor in determining the sentence for the remaining convictions.
Significance
The judgment reiterates the high standard of proof required in cases based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
It underscores the need for courts to carefully distinguish between evidence sufficient for dowry death and cruelty, and that required for murder, ensuring that the benefit of doubt is given where the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RELATED Blog
0 comments