City court slaps prison terms on 3 for dowry harassment

The judge took the daughter’s suo motu into account that vividly stated Kumar’s irresponsible behaviour amounting to cruelty albeit mental health towards the Sandhya.

According to the complainant, her husband and in-laws had demanded Rs 50,000. On refusing to do so, the family forcibly pushed her out of the house on the night of July 7, 1991. The accused persons refused to give back her istridhan of Rs 45,000 which she got from her parents.

On July 12, Sandhya registered a complaint at the Inderpuri police station, which stated that she had been physically assaulted by her husband on the instigation of his parents and brothers. After being thrown out, Sandhya sought shelter in Durga Mandir for one night. Thereafter she lodged an FIR and went to live with her parents.

The court ordered framing of charges. The prosecution produced 10 witnesses including vice-president of Secular Women Welfare, Mohini Gandhi. According to her statement, efforts of a compromise between Sandhya and her in-laws had turned futile. In its defence, the accused persons blamed Sandhya of demanding money to open an ayurvedic clinic for her. Since the money could not be provided, Sandhya left the house with Kumar to live separately, claimed the defence.

Sandhya however refuted the argument and held that she had signed some letter written in English, a language that she does not understand. Sandhya had signed the letter on an understanding that it was a sort of apology from her husband because Kumar had allegedly beaten her few days ago. She was taken by surprise when they shifted to Noida a month-and-a-half before the incident. The reason cited was that Kumar’s office was located there.

However Kumar never came to live there. On the day of the incident, Sandhya went to her in-laws’ house in Rajinder Puri to inquire about Kumar. Instead she was beaten and thrown out.

To support its claim, the prosecution submitted letters written by Sandhya to her parents. In one of the letters addressed to her parents, Sandhya mentioned a threat to burn her after dousing her with kerosene.

The defence could not produce any evidence to rebut the prosecution’s claim or to support its stand.

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetter and guilty men cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human process,” the court pronounced.

The court turned down the defence plea for a lenient view for all the convicts. The defence had asked to reduce Sushila’s punishment on the grounds that she was a widow and suffers from heart and breathing problems.

The argument was vehemently opposed by the prosecution. Acknowledging the prosecution version, the court observed: “There are no mitigating circumstances in the case to warrant a leniency in favour of the convicts”.