Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Husband In Abetment FIR Where Wife Set Herself Ablaze
The Gujarat Excessive Courtroom just lately upheld the acquittal of husband and his kin booked in a dowry loss of life and abetment to suicide case, whereby the spouse had died by suicide after setting herself ablaze.
The trial courtroom had in 2014 acquitted the husband and his kin who have been booked underneath IPC Sections 498A(Cruelty), 306(abetment of suicide), 304B (Dowry Dying) and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In doing so, the excessive courtroom famous the spouse’s dying declaration made no whisper about any alleged dowry calls for and solely proved that there was some household bickering between deceased her husband and mother-in-law, underscoring that “each petty occasion and household bickering” frequent in any household life, can’t be termed as harassment made in reference to demand for dowry.
A Division Bench of Justice Cheekati M. Roy and Justice D. M. Vyas stated,
“Subsequently, the predominant requirement, which is important to show the offence underneath Part 304-B isn’t established even from her dying declaration. Her assertion in dying declaration, at greatest, solely proves that there are some household bickering between her and her mother-in-law and in addition along with her husband. Each petty occasion and household bickering, that are frequent in any household life, can’t be construed as harassment made in reference to demand for dowry. To show an offence underneath Part 304-B, as mentioned supra, there should be particular proof regarding harassment induced in reference to demand for dowry. As the identical isn’t established even from the dying declaration of the deceased, it’s of no any use to the prosecution to ascertain its case in opposition to the accused for the offence underneath Part 304-B of IPC. There may be completely no whisper in any respect concerning harassment induced for dowry within the dying declaration.”
The attraction was filed by the state difficult the judgement of the Trial Courtroom that acquitted the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, the State’s counsel contended the deceased’s dying declaration recorded by Govt Justice of the Peace clearly said her mother-in-law harassed and quarreled along with her which led her to commit suicide by setting herself ablaze. He then said that her dying declaration is ample to show the alleged offences.
The prosecution’ case is that the deceased was legally wedded spouse of accused no. 1 (husband) and so they have been married for 4 years. The couple had a son of a half yr previous and she or he was two months pregnant on the time of her loss of life. She shared a strained relationship along with her mother-in-law (accused no.3) and often harassed by her husband on the behest of his mom. It was alleged that they harassed and beat her even earlier than the day of her loss of life and demanded for extra dowry.
On failing to satisfy these calls for, the husband known as the deceased’s mom to take her again. On 24 October 2013, following a quarrel over meals along with her mother-in-law, the deceased set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene within the morning. She was then rushed to Hospital, the place her dying declaration was recorded by the Govt Justice of the Peace. She said in her dying declaration that she was harassed by her husband and mother-in-law and had set herself ablaze after a quarrel. She handed away the identical night on 24.10.2013 and the physician, who performed post-mortem over her dead-body opined that she died out of shock resulting from intensive burn accidents.
The subsequent day, the deceased’s mom lodged a police criticism, resulting in the registration of a case underneath Sections 498A (Cruelty by husband or relations of husband), 306 (Abetment to suicide), 304B (Dowry loss of life), and 114 (Abetment when abettor is current) of IPC, together with Sections 3 (Penalty for giving or taking dowry) and seven(Cognizance of offences) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A chargesheet was later filed in opposition to all three accused.
Observations of the Courtroom
The Courtroom after totally inspecting the information and proof famous that to ascertain offence underneath Part 304B, the prosecution should show that lady’s loss of life brought on by burn or occurred underneath unnatural circumstances, inside seven years of marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment which ought to be associated to demand for dowry, additional referred to Part 113 B which additionally requires proof of dowry associated harassment earlier than loss of life to invoke presumption of dowry loss of life. Each harassment, which isn’t regarding demand for dowry, is not going to come throughout the purview of the offence of dowry loss of life.
The Courtroom then famous that the deceased’s mom who initially lodged an FIR, alleged dowry harassment turned hostile on the time of her testimony. The opposite witnesses together with father, brother and maternal uncle of the deceased spouse additionally turned hostile and offered no proof of dowry calls for or associated to cruelty. Moreover, the courtroom famous, there’s completely not even ‘an iota of proof on file’ to show that the accused made any unlawful demand for dowry or that they’ve subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for or in reference to any such demand for dowry. Subsequently, it famous that the essential conditions which are important for the aim of proving the offence of dowry loss of life are absent in addition to the presumption underneath the Proof Act can’t be utilized and the prosecution has ‘did not show the offence punishable underneath Part 304-B of IPC.’
The Courtroom then referred to the availability of abetment to suicide and located no proof that the accused instigated or aided the deceased in taking her life, no proof of cruelty or dowry associated harassment and the important components of abetment was additionally not established. Additional, it famous that although the deceased died with seven years of marriage, the presumption underneath Part 113A of the Indian Proof Act couldn’t be utilized, because the proof didn’t meet the definition of ‘cruelty’ underneath Part 498A, and the availability of Dowry Prohibition Act weren’t made out. Thereafter, the courtroom noticed, “If the deceased, both due to her delicate thoughts or of weak nature or emotional temperament, takes excessive resolution of placing an finish to her life within the regular household bickering that befell in the home, accused can’t be attributed with stated conduct, in order to carry them liable for the offence of abetment to commit suicide” and it doesn’t set up the offence of abetment to commit suicide.
The Courtroom then held, “Subsequently, the realized trial Courtroom, after contemplating the proof on file and on correct appreciation of the identical arrived at a proper conclusion and recorded a discovering of acquittal in favour of the accused. Upon contemplating the proof and on reappraisal of the identical, we additionally discovered that no case is made out for any of the costs levelled in opposition to the accused and that the impugned judgment of the trial Courtroom is completely sustainable underneath the regulation. So, it requires no interference on this attraction. Ergo, the attraction is liable to be dismissed.”
The Courtroom then dismissed the attraction and confirmed the judgement of Further Periods Decide, Morbi that acquitted the respondent-accused.
Case Title: State of Gujarat vs Paresh Shantilal & Ors.