© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Gujarat High Court, in a recent judgment, upheld the 2013 order of a trial court in Amreli district, acquitting the in-laws of a deceased woman from charges of dowry death, observing that the contentious sum of Rs 50,000 demanded by the husband’s family was to “meet legal expenses” of an unrelated criminal case filed against the man and his family by another party.
In an order pronounced on June 26, the Division Bench of Justice Cheekati M Roy and Justice D M Vyas noted that the demand of Rs 50,000, which the prosecution submitted as being the reason for the deceased to allegedly die by suicide in August 2011, did not meet the necessary conditions defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, to be considered as “dowry”.
The HC, in its order, said that since the charges were framed against the accused for a case related to dowry death, the prosecution has to prove that the deceased died under unnatural circumstances. Noting that the medical evidence of the autopsy conducted on the deceased had recorded cardio-respiratory failure, the court said, “Though it is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased has consumed poison, unable to meet the demand made by the accused to arrange for Rs 50,000/- for the purpose of meeting the legal expenses to apply for bail for her husband, there is no proper medical evidence on record to prove with certainty that the deceased consumed poison and died.”
The court further said, “Even though the doctor, who has held autopsy over dead body of the deceased, initially opined in the postmortem certificate that cause of her death is shock due to cardio-respiratory failure… in his examination in the Court, he (the doctor) stated that the said failure of lung and heart is due to poison but he clearly stated in his evidence that since viscera is not examined, he is not certain whether failure of lung and heart is due to poison or not.”
The court also said that the IPC section dealing with dowry death requires “harassment meted out to women within seven years of marriage in connection with dowry” as defined in the specific Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court said, “A perusal of the definition of ‘dowry’, makes it manifest that it must be a demand made in connection with money or any valuable security in connection with marriage either before marriage, at the time of marriage or after the marriage.”
The court said, “Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution that any demand for dowry or any valuable security or other property was made by the accused in connection with marriage by the accused. The admitted case of the prosecution is that they only demanded to arrange for money i.e. Rs.50,000/- to meet the legal expenses for the purpose of applying bail to the husband and father-in-law, who were in judicial custody.”
The court said, “Strictly speaking, in our considered view, it does not come within the meaning of ‘dowry’ as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, for the purpose of proving a case under Section 304(B) of IPC. Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any harassment of the deceased at the hands of the accused to meet an illegal demand for dowry and unable to bear said demand that she has committed suicide or met with an unnatural death in connection with said demand.”
According to the prosecution’s case, the deceased got married to her husband in January 2011 and “both of them led a happy marital life” until a criminal case was registered against her husband, father-in-law and her brother-in-law, in an alleged fabrication of document pertaining to a land transaction with a third party in July 2011.
The prosecution’s case was that while her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law were in judicial custody, following their arrest in July 2011, the father-in-law of the deceased directed two other accused in the case — the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased – “to insist (with) the deceased to arrange for Rs 50,000/- from her father to meet the legal expenses for obtaining bail for (the father-in-law) in the said criminal case…” To be sure, the husband had not been booked in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased woman in Savarkundla police station.
The prosecution said while the woman’s father “had arranged Rs 10,000, the accused were not satisfied with the same and insisted the deceased to arrange for the remaining sum of Rs 40,000 … When she could not arrange for the same, and was unable to bear the harassment… it is stated that she has taken poison and committed suicide on August 29, 2011.”
The case was registered against the family of the deceased’s husband and a chargesheet was filed under Indian Penal Code Sections (IPC) 306 (abetment of suicide), 304(B) (dowry death), 498(A) (cruelty by husband or his relatives against a woman), and 114 (crime committed in presence of abettor).
At the end of the trial in 2013, the Sessions Court had acquitted the accused on the ground that “the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused”. The acquittal was challenged by the state.
