 https://www.indiatoday.

in/magazine/indiascope/story/19831130-sudha-goel-death-case-delhi-hc-…

 6 min read

Sudha Goel death case: Delhi HC strikes

down additional sessions judge's verdict

From the day it first cropped up in court the death of Sudha Goel has been front-page news. In
May Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Aggarwal made legal history of sorts when he imposed the
death penalty on Sudha's husband Laxman Kumar, his mother Shakuntala Devi and brother
Subhash. The judge justified the death penalty observing that the crime was made worse by the
fact that Sudha was pregnant at the time.

Last fortnight the case was back in the limelight once again. In a startling verdict the Delhi High
Court struck down S.M. Aggarwal's judgement and declared Shakuntala Devi and her two sons
innocent. In a trenchant passage the two high court judges, Justice R.N. Aggarwal and Justice
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din sternly observed that in his effort to find a motive for the crime, "the
learned additional sessions judge has given flight to his imagination and fancies".

Stern Criticism: As the rumpus gathered strength Justice R.N. Aggarwal who wrote the high
court judgement remarked in court one day that "people should read the judgement before they
criticise it". In some ways his plaintive complaint was justified. Few of his vocal critics knew
more than the barest details of the judgement. Many had latched on to a passage at the tail end
of the judgement where the judge remarked almost apologetically that "judges are human
beings and can err. The satisfying factor is that we are not the final court and there is a court
above us and if our judgement is wrong it shall be set right."

But while much of the early criticism of the judgement may well have been unfounded, a
comparison of the two judgements serves as a telling and rather uncomfortable illustration of
how different judges can start with the same set of facts and come to entirely opposite
conclusions. The undisputed facts of the case are that around 9 p.m. on December 1, 1980 the
neighbours heard screams. When they ran to the house they found Sudha in flames. She died
the next morning in hospital.

S.M. Aggarwal placed great value on the evidence of the neighbours who said that Laxman and
Subhash were holding the door and trying to prevent them from entering the courtyard where
Sudha was burning to death. The neighbours also testified that Sudha had repeatedly screamed
that Shakuntala Devi had doused her with kerosene and with the help of her two sons set her
ablaze. The sessions judge had even gone to the extent of remarking: "The testimony of Jaspal
Singh is of sterling worth and deserves implicit reliance." He added that the witness had, "stood
the test of cross examination in a very courageous manner."

The high court felt differently. The two judges were sceptical about the evidence of the
neighbours. They pointed out that the statements made by the witnesses to the police and to
the sessions court had varied. They also place emphasis on the fact that the neighbours had
not gone to the police immediately but had held a meeting the next day, and only then gone to
the police station.

Different Approach: For their part the high court judges placed their faith in the written
declaration made by Sudha in the hospital, which was taken down by Sub-Inspector Surinder
Dev and witnessed by a senior doctor R. Joseph at St. Stephen's Hospital. It also places weight
on the fact that Sudha's sister was with her much of the time in hospital and that she had
allowed Sudha's husband and his brother to accompany them to hospital. The sessions judge
disbelieved the sub-inspector and the doctor and passed strictures against both.

The two judgements are speckled with a host of other minor differences. Examples:

S.M. Aggarwal of the sessions court declined to accept letters written by Sudha's family as
proof of cordial relations between the two families. He said that the girl's family had
probably thought it prudent to flatter her husband's family for Sudha's sake. The high court
dismisses such theories and accepts the letters at their face value;

The high court explains the fact that there was 17 litres of kerosene in the house saying
that this is not unusual in these days when gas is occasionally in short supply. It also does
not appear to find anything odd in the fact that Sudha was lighting the stove in the
courtyard on a winter night when there was gas in the house. The session judge believes
this to be telling evidence;

The high court accepted the evidence of Jaswant Singh, the taxi-driver, who took Sudha to
hospital. It even remarks that though the prosecution did not examine the taxi-driver the
 "accused took the risk to examine the driver of the taxi in which admittedly the deceased
was taken to hospital". The sessions court did not accept the taxi driver's evidence.

Whatever may be the merits of the two judgements, they are a depressing illustration of how
difficult it is to get convictions in dowry death cases, where the courts have to sift through a
jumble of conflicting circumstantial evidence. Many lawyers stress that it is impossible to get
convictions if the judges take an overly technical approach in such cases.

Says lawyer Kirti Singh: "The judges must be aware of social realities." Adds Rani Jethmalani,
who intervened in the case on behalf of a women's organisation, the Mahila Dakshata Samiti:
"The judges cannot live in their ivory towers. The court must bear in mind that there are such
things as dowry deaths and police corruption."

Shakuntala Devi flanked by Laxman Kumar and Subhash: Reprieved

The case has already created more than its fair share of storms in the legal fraternity. S.M.
Aggarwal was hauled up some time ago for making a speech on the case. Delhi lawyers are
also upset over the demonstrations by the various women's organisations.

The Delhi Bar Association has passed a resolution deploring demonstrations in the high court
premises. Other lawyers are angry that the judges should have acknowledged public opinion at
the end of the judgement. Says Raju Ramachandran, a young Supreme Court lawyer: "The
judges should not have made such remarks."

Meanwhile as the controversy swirls, Shakuntala Devi and her two sons have returned to a
home, after a five-month stay on death row. But they may yet face more legal action. The state
is examining the question of whether it should appeal to the Supreme Court. Even if it does not,
various women's rights activists have vowed to go in appeal. With all these moves afoot it looks
as if the ghost of Sudha Goel may not have been laid to rest yet.