The Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of a husband and in-laws in a dowry death case.

The Court observed that, to attract the offence of dowry death under Section 304B IPC, there must be harassment meted out to women within seven years of her marriage in connection with any demand for dowry as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

In the instant case, a criminal case was registered against her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law for the offence of dowry death among others.

The Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and D. M. Vyas observed, “The admitted case of the prosecution is that they only demanded to arrange for money i.e. Rs.50,000/- to meet the legal expenses for the purpose of applying bail to the husband of PW-1 and her father-in-law, who were in judicial custody. Strictly speaking, in our considered view, it does not come within the meaning of “dowry” as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for the purpose of proving a case under Section 304(B) of IPC. Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any harassment of the deceased at the hands of the accused to meet an illegal demand for dowry and unable to bear said demand that she has committed suicide or met with an unnatural death in connection with said demand.”

Advocate Bhargav Pandya represented the Appellant, while Advocate Pavan Barot represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The deceased woman’s husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law were acquitted by the trial court of the charges under Sections 304(B), 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Court’s Analysis

The Court emphasised that since the charge under Section 304(B) of IPC was framed against the accused relating to dowry death, the prosecution has to prove that the deceased died under unnatural circumstances, as required under Section 304(B) of IPC.

However, there is no proper medical evidence on record to prove with certainty that the deceased consumed poison and died. Even though the doctor, who has held autopsy over dead body of the deceased, initially opined in the postmortem certificate, that cause of her death is shock due to cardio-respiratory failure, he did not specifically state in the postmortem report that the said cardio-respiratory failure is due to taking poison by the deceased.

The Court observed, “Therefore, the prosecution has basically and miserably failed to prove that the deceased has taken poison and died, with any acceptable legal evidence to that effect. So, it cannot be said that she has consumed poison and died.”

In regard to the contention of asking Rs. 50,000 to meet legal expenses the court opined that when the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased died by consuming poison or there was any demand made by the accused for dowry or for any valuable security or property or that she died under any unnatural circumstances, it is difficult to hold that any case under Section 304(B), 306, 498(A) and 114 of IPC was made out against any of the accused persons.

In the light of the above, the Court upheld the trial court’s decision of acquittal.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Natubhai Golanbhai Khuman & Ors.

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Bhargav Pandya

Respondent: Advocate Pavan Barot and P.B. Khanderia

Click here to read/download the Judgment.

Gujarat High CourtJustice Cheekati Manavendranath RoyJustice D. M. Vyas

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.