Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
Woman Crying On Call Not Proof Of Dowry Harassment: Delhi High Court Upholds Discharge Of Husband, In-Laws In Dowry Death Case
|The complainant alleged that after the marriage, his daughter was subjected to constant harassment and humiliation for not bringing sufficient dowry.
The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court's decision to discharge a husband and his family members in a dowry death and cruelty case, observing that vague and unsubstantiated allegations cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
A Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated that simply seeing the deceased in tears cannot, in itself, be construed as evidence of dowry-related harassment. The Court held, “The sister of the deceased, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., mentioned that on Holi, she had called her sister and found her crying. However, merely because the deceased was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment.”
Background
The case arose from a petition filed by the father of the deceased woman, challenging the trial court’s order that discharged the accused her husband and his parents of charges under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 304B (dowry death) IPC.
The complainant alleged that after the marriage, his daughter was subjected to constant harassment and humiliation for not bringing sufficient dowry. He claimed the accused made specific demands, including a gold bracelet, a bike, and other valuable items. According to him, when these demands were not fulfilled, his daughter was mentally tortured, which ultimately led to her death.
Findings
However, the Court noted several inconsistencies and shortcomings in the prosecution’s case. Crucially, the post-mortem report revealed that the woman had died due to pneumonia, not due to any injury or external harm, a fact that the trial court had also relied upon while discharging the accused.
“In the present case, to bring in the clause of cruelty leading to the death of the woman, it may be noted that the deceased had died not because of any act of cruelty but for natural reasons, as stated by CW-1 and rightly noted by learned ASJ. Therefore, Clause (a) to the Explanation annexed to Section 498A IPC is not attracted,” the High Court observed.
Therefore, the Court held that the conditions under Clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498A IPC which refers to willful conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury—were not satisfied.
Further, the High Court criticized the vague and general nature of the allegations made by the complainant. It pointed out that the complainant, who claimed to be an auto-rickshaw driver with limited means, failed to specify any date or provide proof of giving dowry or any monetary transactions to the accused. The Court stated that, “Such bald assertions cannot be considered to even disclose the case of harassment.”
Moreover, the Court found that the father’s complaint did not refer to any specific incidents of dowry demands or cruelty. The general claims of "constant demand of money" lacked the necessary factual foundation to sustain criminal charges.
In light of the medical evidence and lack of concrete proof of harassment or dowry demands, the High Court found no error in the trial court’s decision to discharge the accused. The Court ultimately dismissed the father's plea, reiterating the importance of substantiating allegations with credible and specific evidence in dowry-related cases.
Cause Title: Gainda Lal v. The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors., [2025:DHC:6826]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Gurbaksh Singh & Arjun Dhamija
Respondents: Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, M. T. Malik and Arnab Malik