Published on :
Mumbai: A sessions court in Mumbai recently acquitted a man and four of his relatives of charges of domestic violence, dowry death and abetment of suicide of his wife, ruling that their failure to provide medical treatment to the woman did not amount to cruelty. [State of Maharashtra v. XYZ]Additional Sessions Judge SM Takalikar also ruled that the general wear and tear within a family did not constitute cruelty towards the deceased.
“Mere fact that accused has not provided medical treatment to the deceased does not mean that there was cruelty to her. Further general wear and tear in the family does not amount to cruelty to the deceased,” the Court said.
The complaint against the accused was registered by the maternal uncle of the deceased in 2012 after she died by suicide in 2011.
He alleged that her husband and in-laws assaulted and harassed her after she gave birth and refused to provide her medical treatment despite her weak condition post childbirth, contributing to the decision to end her life.
Consequently, a court framed charges against the accused under Sections 498A (cruelty to woman by husband or his relatives), 306 (abetment of suicide), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 304B (dowry death) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In all, the prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused.
Appearing for the State of Maharashtra, Assistant Public Prosecutor Ambekar stated that the death of the deceased was within seven years of her marriage, and therefore, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act was applicable.
In cases where a married woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and there is evidence that her husband or his relatives have been cruel to her, under Section 113A, a court may presume that the suicide was abetted by the husband or his relatives based on all the circumstances of the case.
The prosecutor argued that based on the evidence presented, the accused had been cruel to the deceased, made money demands of her, abetted her suicide and misappropriated her gold and silver ornaments given to her during her wedding. Thus, he argued for conviction of the accused.
Advocate Nilesh Mishra for the accused argued that there were no eyewitnesses and that the prosecution’s evidence was based on hearsay.
He also pointed out material improvements in the evidence of some prosecution witnesses, and argued that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the accused had an affair with another woman.
Additionally, he argued that a material witness did not state anything against the accused. Therefore, he requested that the accused be given the benefit of the doubt due to the lack of reliable evidence.
The court ruled that the testimonies of witnesses were vague and did not prove cruelty on part of the accused.
“Evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 is vague and general in nature. No specific act has been stated by any of the witness. Therefore, vague and general evidence does not prove that accused treated the deceased with cruelty,” the order stated.
As a consequence, it ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had abetted the woman’s suicide and committed dowry death. It also ruled that since no entrustment of ornaments was proved, there was no question of misappropriation.
In this light, the court determined that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond doubt, and resultantly, acquitted all the accused.
