Can’t Hold Him Guilty Merely Because He Was Father-In-Law Of Deceased Woman: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Conviction U/S 498A IPC

The Criminal Appeal before the High Court was filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment and order of conviction passed in a case registered under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 IPC and Sections 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi held, “Only on this ground that accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan is father-in-law of the deceased and he is father of the accused-appellant Deshraj, Ram Sajeevan could not be held guilty for the alleged crime. For recording a finding of guilty, cogent and consistent reasons and also evidence must be adduced by the prosecution. We find that no any cogent and consistent evidence is present in this case against the accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan for the alleged commission of the crime except general allegations.”

Advocate Akhilesh Pandey represented the Appellant while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The informant had lodged a written report stating therein that the applicant had married her daughter with the accused, after giving full gift and dowry according to custom and traditions, but the in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied with the dowry and they had been demanding Rs 5 lakh more in dowry. It was alleged that the daughter’s husband and her in-laws were beating her due to this demand of dowry and attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene oil.

It was alleged that on the occasion of festival of Holi, the informant’s daughter had come to his house and when she had returned with her husband he had given this intimidation that if the informant could not give Rs 5 lakh then his daughter would not return home. On April 28, 2016, the informant was informed that his daughter had died.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, noted that the first appellant was the husband and the second appellant was the father-in-law of the deceased against whom and other family members a general allegation of demand of additional dowry of R 5 lakh was levelled. On a perusal of the evidence of the witnesses of fact, the Bench found that general allegations regarding demand of additional dowry and cruelty were levelled by the prosecution witnesses against the accused-appellants. No specific statement or any other evidence was adduced by the prosecution from which it could be revealed that in what way and manner the father-in-law had committed cruelty to her deceased daughter-in-law Savita and demanded the money.

“From the perusal of the evidence of the above prosecution witness, it is also revealed that general allegations against accused-appellant persons including accused appellan appellant Ram Sajeevan are levelled by the said prosecution witness”, it added.

The Bench further found that the accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan, father of the accused-appellant, is a very poor person who earns his livelihood and nourishes the family by pulling a rickshaw trolley. As per the Bench, since the prosecution witnesses clearly accepted in their evidence that the father of accused-appellant Deshraj was a rickshaw puller and was maintaining his family by pulling a rickshaw trolley, the involvement of the accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan was falsely concocted by the prosecution side to harass the whole family of the defence side.

The Bench further noted that the Trial Court, only on the basis of the general allegations against all the family members of the deceased’s matrimonial home, convicted Ram Sajeevan for the alleged crime, but the same was not supported by any cogent evidence on the record. “It is settled principles of law that no accused person can be held guilty for heinous crime only on general allegations without supported by any cogent and reliable evidence. Thus, from the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court in respect of the accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan is not judicious and proper, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of the law”, it added.

The Bench thus set aside the order of conviction and sentence against accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan. Considering that the accused-appellant Deshraj has been in jail since 2016 and is serving the sentence, the Bench reduced the sentence of accused-appellant Deshraj to ten years' imprisonment.

Cause Title: Deshraj and another v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:130327-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Akhilesh Pandey, Jagmohan Singh, Jainendra Kumar Mishra, Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy

Respondent: Government Advocate

Click here to read/donwload Order