Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Husband, In-Laws In Dowry Death Case
The Gujarat Excessive Court docket upheld the acquittal of a husband and in-laws in a dowry loss of life case.
The Court docket noticed that, to draw the offence of dowry loss of life underneath Part 304B IPC, there should be harassment meted out to girls inside seven years of her marriage in reference to any demand for dowry as outlined in Part 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Within the on the spot case, a prison case was registered towards her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law for the offence of dowry loss of life amongst others.
The Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and D. M. Vyas noticed, “The admitted case of the prosecution is that they solely demanded to rearrange for cash i.e. Rs.50,000/- to fulfill the authorized bills for the aim of making use of bail to the husband of PW-1 and her father-in-law, who had been in judicial custody. Strictly talking, in our thought-about view, it doesn’t come inside the that means of “dowry” as outlined underneath Part 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for the aim of proving a case underneath Part 304(B) of IPC. Due to this fact, it can’t be stated that there was any harassment of the deceased by the hands of the accused to fulfill an unlawful demand for dowry and unable to bear stated demand that she has dedicated suicide or met with an unnatural loss of life in reference to stated demand.”
Advocate Bhargav Pandya represented the Appellant, whereas Advocate Pavan Barot represented the Respondents.
Case Transient
The deceased lady’s husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law had been acquitted by the trial courtroom of the fees underneath Sections 304(B), 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Court docket’s Evaluation
The Court docket emphasised that for the reason that cost underneath Part 304(B) of IPC was framed towards the accused regarding dowry loss of life, the prosecution has to show that the deceased died underneath unnatural circumstances, as required underneath Part 304(B) of IPC.
Nevertheless, there is no such thing as a correct medical proof on report to show with certainty that the deceased consumed poison and died. Regardless that the physician, who has held post-mortem over useless physique of the deceased, initially opined within the postmortem certificates, that explanation for her loss of life is shock as a consequence of cardio-respiratory failure, he didn’t particularly state within the postmortem report that the stated cardio-respiratory failure is because of taking poison by the deceased.
The Court docket noticed, “Due to this fact, the prosecution has principally and miserably did not show that the deceased has taken poison and died, with any acceptable authorized proof to that impact. So, it can’t be stated that she has consumed poison and died.”
In regard to the competition of asking Rs. 50,000 to fulfill authorized bills the courtroom opined that when the prosecution did not show that the deceased died by consuming poison or there was any demand made by the accused for dowry or for any worthwhile safety or property or that she died underneath any unnatural circumstances, it’s troublesome to carry that any case underneath Part 304(B), 306, 498(A) and 114 of IPC was made out towards any of the accused individuals.
Within the gentle of the above, the Court docket upheld the trial courtroom’s determination of acquittal.
Accordingly, the enchantment was dismissed.
Trigger Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Natubhai Golanbhai Khuman & Ors.
Look
Appellant: Advocate Bhargav Pandya
Respondent: Advocate Pavan Barot and P.B. Khanderia
