Wife died of heart condition, not poison: Why Calcutta High Court acquitted husband in dowry case 2 decades later

“With the opinion of the doctor who held a post-mortem about the possible reason due to her enlarged heart inspires confidence in the mind of the court that the poor girl died due to her illness, and she suffered for more than two hours but was not attended by any doctor, and lastly died while taken to the hospital,” the May 13 order read.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das was hearing the appeal filed by the husband challenging the trial court’s 2007 conviction order.

The complaint was filed at the instance of the father of the victim, who alleged that his daughter was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands at the hands of her husband and mother-in-law.

The Calcutta High Court was hearing the appeal filed by the husband challenging the trial court’s 2007 conviction order under Section 498A (cruelty to wife) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

‘Glaring inconsistencies’

• The Calcutta High Court found glaring inconsistencies in the evidence adduced by the parents of the victim and held that the stand taken by the prosecution about the victim coming to her parents’ house due to torture did not sustain.
• The court also noted that the victim’s parents could not arrange for a doctor for more than 2.5 hours when she was suffering from discomfort. They did not inform the husband or any person in their locality.
• The Calcutta High Court noted that the victim’s mother stated that the marriage between her daughter and the accused was the outcome of a love affair.
• The bench also observed that several prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and that no external injury marks were found on the body of the victim during the inquest.
• The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond the “shadow” of reasonable doubt, the Calcutta High Court held.
• It allowed the criminal appeal and ordered that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court be set aside.

Death within 14 months of marriage

The case stemmed from the death of a young woman in April 2005, who had married the accused in February 2004.

It was alleged that in April 2005, the victim went to her parents’ residence and told them that her mother-in-law was pressuring her to bring an amount of Rs 1.5 lakh, but the woman’s father allegedly expressed his inability to pay the amount. That night, the daughter became ill and she was taken to a hospital, where she died. It was claimed that the doctor revealed she had died due to the consumption of poison.

The father then filed a complaint alleging that his daughter was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law, soon after her marriage.

The father also claimed that village elders, gram panchayat members and even a women’s cell had earlier attempted reconciliation between the couple, but the alleged torture continued.

A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the husband and mother-in-law at the instance of the father, alleging that the death of his daughter was caused by torture by the son-in-law and his mother. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the matter proceeded to trial.

The trial court ultimately acquitted the accused persons of dowry death charges but convicted the husband for cruelty and released him on probation for one year in July 2007.

Aggrieved by the same, the husband challenged the trial court’s order in the Calcutta High Court.

Arguments

Appearing for the man, advocate Saryati Datta argued that the trial court failed to consider that the examination of the applicant was illegal, violating the principles of natural justice and fair play, and had caused gross prejudice to his client and had been rendered a mistrial in the eyes of the law.

It was further argued that the prosecution failed to examine the persons who had taken the victim to the hospital and other witnesses who were relevant to the case.

It was added that the prosecution failed to prove any demand of dowry, and in the absence of any cogent evidence, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Representing the state, advocate Suman De submitted that the allegations of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A (husband or his relative subjecting woman to cruelty) of the IPC had been proved through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and that the conviction recorded by the trial court did not warrant interference.