Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Husband, In-Laws
Whereas upholding the acquittal of a person and his mom in an alleged case of dowry demise, the Gujarat Excessive Courtroom has noticed that each petty occasion and household bickering can’t be construed as harassment made in reference to the demand for dowry.
The Excessive Courtroom was contemplating an enchantment difficult the judgment whereby the accused individuals within the stated case have been acquitted of the fees underneath Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, learn with Sections 3 and seven of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice D. M. Vyas stated, “ Due to this fact, the predominant requirement, which is important to show the offence underneath Part 304-B just isn’t established even from her dying declaration. Her assertion in dying declaration, at greatest, solely proves that there are some household bickerings between her and her mother-in-law and in addition along with her husband. Each petty occasion and household bickerings, 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 triggered in reference to demand for dowry. As the identical just isn’t established even from the dying declaration of the deceased, it is of no any use to the prosecution to determine its case towards the accused for the offence underneath Part 304-B of IPC.”
APP Bhargav Pandya represented the Appellant.
Factual Background
The deceased lady was the legally wedded spouse of Accused 1. Their marriage was solemnized about 4 years earlier than her demise. The deceased was pregnant on the time of her demise. Allegedly, there was a strained relationship between the deceased and her mother-in-law, who’s accused 3. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused individuals used to harass her, demanding further dowry from her. When the deceased lady’s mom got here to take her again, there was a quarrel between the deceased and her mother-in-law, regarding the meals that was ready. Unable to bear stated harassment, the deceased instantly went right into a room, poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. She was taken to a Hospital and on the requisition given by the involved physician, the Govt Justice of the Peace recorded the assertion of the injured.
The lady had acknowledged that unable to bear the harassment meted out by her by the hands of her husband and the in-laws, she went right into a room and poured kerosene and set herself ablaze. She died on the identical day a case got here to be registered underneath Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B and 114 of the IPC learn with Sections 3 and seven of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Courtroom discovered the accused not responsible of any of the fees levelled towards them and acquitted them of the stated offences. Aggrieved, the State most popular the enchantment earlier than the Excessive Courtroom.
Reasoning
Referring to part 304-B of the IPC and Part 113-B of the Indian Proof Act, the Bench defined, “Thus, a conjoint studying of each Sections 304-B of IPC and Part 113-B of the Indian Proof Act makes it manifest that the prosecution has to invariably show that there was cruelty or harassment triggered to the girl inside seven years of her marriage and, extra significantly, that the stated cruelty or harassment was triggered for or in reference to any demand for dowry. Each harassment, which isn’t regarding demand for dowry, is not going to come throughout the purview of the offence of dowry demise as contemplated underneath Part 304-B of IPC.”
On a perusal of the details of the case, the Bench famous that although the mom of the deceased lodged an FIR, she didn’t assist the prosecution model in her proof given within the Courtroom. The daddy, mom, brother and uncle of the deceased additionally turned hostile, and they didn’t depose that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment by making any demand for dowry.
As there was no proof on report to show that the accused made any unlawful demand for dowry or that they’d subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for or in reference to any such demand for dowry, the Bench famous that the essential stipulations important for the aim of proving the offence underneath Part 304-B of IPC have been conspicuously absent and they weren’t proved by the prosecution towards the accused. Furthermore, no presumption underneath Part 113-B of the Indian Proof Act might be invoked in the given details and circumstances of the case.
Coming to the allegations pertaining to Part 498-A of IPC, the Bench famous that whilst per the assertion given by the deceased in her dying declaration, it didn’t fulfill the definition of “cruelty” as envisaged in Part 498-A of IPC. “If the deceased, both due to her delicate thoughts or of weak nature or emotional temperament, takes excessive choice of placing an finish to her life within the regular household bickering that occurred 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, as required underneath Part 306 of IPC. Due to this fact, the offence underneath Part 306 can also be not proved and established on this case by the prosecution”, it noticed.
The Bench discovered no proof of subjecting the deceased to any cruelty or harassment, with demand for dowry, helpful safety or property. Thus, dismissing the enchantment, the Bench confirmed the judgment acquitting the respondents-accused.
Trigger Title: State of Gujarat v. Paresh Shantilal & Ors (Impartial Quotation: 2025:GUJHC:33892-DB)
Look
Appellant: APP Bhargav Pandya
