A Delhi court has put on trial an AIIMS doctor whose wife, also a doctor at the premier hospital, allegedly killed herself in April after describing him as a “homosexual” in a suicide note.
The accused, a senior resident doctor at AIIMS, pleaded not guilty and faces trial on charges of subjecting his wife to cruelty, dowry death and abetment of suicide. “There is sufficient evidence to frame the charge against the accused…,” Additional Sessions Judge Atul Kumar Garg observed. The court will begin recording of evidence against the accused from October 5.
- Suhaib Ilyasi killed wife fearing she may disclose his frauds: Delhi court
- Suhaib Ilyasi, once host of India’s Most Wanted, convicted in wife’s murder
- Three acquitted in ‘dowry suicide’ case: Merely saying that wife came with ‘empty hands’ is not dowry demand, says court
- He is gay, she was in love. He couldn’t change, she couldn’t live
- 'Gay' doctor of AIIMS sent to 14 days' judicial custody
- Delhi: AIIMS doctor kills herself after blaming ‘gay’ husband of cruelty
The woman doctor, 30, had allegedly killed herself by slitting her wrist at a hotel in central Delhi’s Paharganj, leaving behind a suicide note and a Facebook post that said her five-year-old marriage had not been consummated because her husband was a “homosexual”.
During the argument on framing of charges, the prosecution relied upon the suicide notes to corroborate the alleged role of the husband in subjecting her to cruelty. On the charge of dowry death, the prosecution argued that the supplementary statement recorded by police, related to the parents of deceased, inferred that she was allegedly “harassed and tortured on account of demand of dowry.”
On this point of argument of the prosecution, the court stated, “Supplementary statement under Section 161 CrPC recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation is also an evidence within the meaning of Indian Evidence Act. When the fact of demand of dowry has been specifically mentioned in the supplementary statement, then there is no reason for discharge of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC.”
Defence counsel argued for discharge on the grounds that “every cruelty” does not come under the section of 304B (Dowry death) of the IPC. He added that the initial complaint of the parents did not mention the allegation related to demand of dowry. “Cruelty or harassment meted to the deceased shall be in regard to the demand of dowry so as to attract the ingredients of Section 304B IPC. The initial statement of the complainant recorded by the police does not mention any fact regarding the demand of dowry. The offence under Section 304B IPC is not made out,” defence counsel argued.