Justice May Vary According To Perceptions: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Husband, In-Laws After Dowry Victim Forgives Them Despite Being Severely Burnt

The High Court was considering a matter where a woman was set on fire, allegedly by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and husband in the year 2000, on non-fulfilment of dowry demands.

The Single Bench of Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed, "Justice may vary according to perceptions, reasons, outlook and norms but by and large, what is right is right in every society for everyone and what is wrong is wrong for everyone in every society."

“In the words of father of the nation “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind”, thus, he emphasized the importance and power of forgiveness and it seems that the same sense of forgiveness, has prevailed upon the victim herein namely who, despite being severely burnt, scars of which are still visible on her physique, has forgiven her husband and his family as she has come forward and stated that she does not want any further action against them", it added.

Advocate Kuldeep Kumar represented the Appellant, while Additional Public Prosecutor Mukesh Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the victim woman was harassed, tortured and set on fire. Her mother-in-law and brother-in-law allegedly caught hold of her hands, and her husband did the rest of the act. The matter was not reported to the police on the date of the incident. She was not taken to the hospital, but was transferred to her paternal home, where she was given Ayurvedic/local treatment. She was pregnant at that time and delivered a female child, and after about 20 days of delivery of the child, she lodged the report with the police, which resulted in the registration of the FIR. The three accused were charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 498A read with Section 34 and Section 342 read with Section 34.

The chargesheet filed against them culminated in the conviction of the three accused persons, and all three were sentenced to various punishments. It was in such circumstances that the appeal was filed, in which the victim categorically stated that she did not want any action against the Appellants, as the matter was resolved subsequently, and she had started living with the Appellant/her husband. It was also brought to the Court’s notice that she had given birth to two more children. The appellant husband thus confined their contentions to the aspect of sentence awarded to them by submitting that they had already undergone a substantive period of custody during the trial and post conviction. The victim further stated that she did not want any action against them.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, highlighted the fact that such cases are apparently a testament of the evils of dowry system and the extent of greed of materialistic possessions has blinded the humans, so much so that they are ready to snuff out the lives of other human beings for ephemeral gains and objects without realizing that the materialistic objects in life are nothing but a grand illusion.

The Bench noted that a sense of forgiveness had prevailed upon the victim who, despite being severely burnt, scars of which were still visible on her physique, had forgiven her husband, his family and had come forward to state that she did not want any further action against them. “Any sentence at this stage involving further custody would ruin the cordiality, which she has achieved in her revived relationship with her husband Appellant…”

The Bench further noted that the acceptance by her brother-in-law and mother-in-law and her forgiveness for them had resulted in the family coming together. As per the Bench, the addition in the family by having three more children spoke in favour of the Appellants and disturbing the equilibrium would be detrimental not only to the Appellants but also to the victim and her five children too. “The matter pertains to the year 2000 and now after 25-26 years things have radically changed for everyone and for good”, it added.

The Bench disposed of the petition by upholding the judgment of conviction and modifying the sentence to the period of custody undergone by them.

Cause Title: A v. State (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3876)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Kuldeep Kumar, Aashaa Tiwari, Appellant in person

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Mukesh Kumar, Advocate Shailesh Chandra Jha

Click here to read/download Order