Acquittal in Dowry Harassment and Suicide Case: Court Finds No Evidence of Abetment.


09 January 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Dowry death >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law  

This appeal challenges the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dated 6th August 2013, in Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 1993, which upheld the trial court's conviction of the appellant and three co-accused for the offences under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498-A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellant, the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased, seeks acquittal.

The prosecution's case states that the deceased, Kusum Devi, was subjected to harassment and dowry demands by her in-laws, including the appellant. On 27th September 1990, the deceased set herself on fire after being allegedly subjected to cruelty and dowry demands. Her father lodged an FIR alleging that the in-laws, including the appellant, were responsible for her death. The investigation led to charges being filed against four accused, including the appellant.


 

 
 
 

The trial court initially framed a charge for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC but later acquitted the accused of that charge while convicting them for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, and offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant appealed the conviction, which was dismissed by the High Court.

Upon reviewing the case, including the oral evidence and nature of allegations against the appellant, the Court found no substantial evidence to support the claim that the appellant abetted the deceased's suicide. The Court referred to Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, which allow presumptions in cases of abetment of suicide and dowry death, respectively. It noted the difference in the application of these provisions, emphasizing that for Section 113B to apply, there must be clear and cogent evidence of harassment or abetment, which was lacking in this case.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellant. The appellant's bail was discharged, and any pending applications were disposed of.


Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961  

Indian Penal Code, 1860