Acquittal in Dowry-Harassment Case as Supreme Court Finds Conviction Unsustainable on Evidence

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard the appeal by Smt. Bhagwati Devi challenging the Uttarakhand High Court’s affirmation of her conviction under Section 498-A IPC for alleged cruelty and dowry harassment following the death of her daughter‑in‑law. The appeal arose from a trial in which charges under Sections 302 and 304‑B were acquitted but the mother‑in‑law was convicted for alleged cruelty under Section 498‑A.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 498‑A. The bench held that the conviction could not be sustained on the material on record and discharged the appellant’s bail bonds. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “21. ‘Cruelty’ for the purpose of Section 498‑A IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498‑A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as ‘cruelty’ to attract the provisions of Section 498‑A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.’ The Court further noted that “the answer has to be necessarily in the negative” when asked whether the conviction could be sustained on the material evidence and observed that “such facts being conspicuously absent in the instant case, we have no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the conviction … cannot be sustained.”

Background: The deceased married the appellant’s son about a year before she was found dead on 15 June 2001. Her father lodged a complaint the next day, stating that the daughter had been found hanging and alleging that she had complained of sarcastic remarks by her mother‑in‑law about dowry; the complaint did not, however, specifically record any dowry demand. The police registered Crime Case No. 1 of 2001 and the trial court charged the father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law (accused no.2) and brother‑in‑law with offences under Sections 304‑B, 498‑A and alternatively 302 read with Section 34. After trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted on counts under Sections 302 and 304‑B but convicted the mother‑in‑law under Section 498‑A, sentencing her to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine; the High Court affirmed that conviction on re‑appreciation of evidence. The present appeal challenged that affirmation.

At trial the prosecution examined the father (PW‑1), brother (PW‑2), mother (PW‑3) and the doctor who conducted the post‑mortem (PW‑4), among others; the defence examined a neighbour (DW‑1) who stated that no dowry demand had been made. The post‑mortem recorded asphyxia due to strangulation. The Supreme Court reviewed the complaint and depositions and found significant inconsistencies and omissions: the original complaint and the father’s deposition did not mention any specific dowry demand; PW‑3 admitted that the alleged demands were first disclosed in her examination‑in‑chief and accepted that the married life had been “happy and cordial”; PW‑2’s testimony did not corroborate continuous harassment; DW‑1’s unchallenged statement that no dowry demand occurred was discarded by the courts below on the ground that such matters occurred “within four walls,” a finding the Supreme Court held to be erroneous in the factual matrix. Applying settled precedent that cruelty under Section 498‑A must be established as continuous or proximate to the complaint, the Court concluded that the prosecution had not proved cruelty or dowry demand to the requisite standard.

The Court consequently allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment dated 10.04.2014, acquitted the accused under Section 498‑A, discharged bail bonds and made no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2616 of 2014 Case Title: Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhand Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Anshumaan Purohit, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Smt. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Advocate