Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Discharge Of In-Laws In Dowry Death Case

The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge, courts are required only to examine whether prima facie materials exist disclosing the commission of an offence, and not to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or determine the truthfulness of witness statements.

Setting aside an order of discharge passed in favour of the in-laws of a deceased woman in a dowry death case, the Court held that allegations relating to dowry demands, gender-based cruelty, and harassment linked to the birth of a girl child could not be summarily discarded merely because the accused relatives were not physically present at the place where the suicide occurred.

A Single Bench of Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, while allowing the criminal revision, observed, “It is very difficult to say at this stage that there is no incriminating evidence against the present respondents who were discharged from the charge of the case.”

The Court set aside the Sessions Court’s order dated 29.07.2024, discharging four in-laws accused under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, directed them to surrender before the trial court within four weeks, and ordered that charges be framed against them in accordance with law.

The case arises from the death of Bhawna, who died by suicide on 8.07.2021, at Port Blair, after allegedly killing her one-and-a-half-year-old daughter. At the time of the incident, Bhawna’s husband was at his office.

The room in which the incident took place was found bolted from inside and was later broken open by the husband with the assistance of neighbours. Initially, a neighbour lodged a complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC against unknown persons.

The bodies of the deceased woman and her child were taken to Punjab for last rites.

Subsequently, Bhawna’s father lodged a complaint at Pahargaon Police Station alleging offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC against the husband and his family members.

After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet and a supplementary charge sheet arraigning the husband along with his parents, brother, and sister. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the in-laws sought discharge.

By its order dated 29.07.2024, the Sessions Judge allowed the discharge application of the parents-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, holding that there was insufficient material to frame charges against them and that they were not residing with the deceased at Port Blair.

The Sessions Court concluded that the couple had been living independently in Andaman and Nicobar Islands since May 2018 and that no prima facie case was made out against the in-laws. Charges were directed to be framed only against the husband.

Challenging this order, the State contended before the High Court that the Sessions Judge had failed to consider the statements of crucial witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

It was argued that the witness statements disclosed consistent allegations of dowry demands, mental harassment, and cruelty inflicted by the in-laws, including demands for additional cash linked to the birth of a male child. According to the State, these materials were sufficient to establish a prima facie case warranting trial.

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the discharged accused argued that the in-laws were not present at the place of occurrence and that the allegations amounted to no more than normal matrimonial discord.

It was further contended that the deceased displayed a suspicious temperament and that there was no material to show active involvement of the in-laws in any alleged acts of cruelty or dowry demand.

After examining the record, the High Court found that the Sessions Court’s conclusion that the deceased had been continuously residing in Andaman since May 2018 was not borne out from the material on record. The Court noted that statements of the deceased’s father and other relatives indicated that Bhawna had returned to her matrimonial home in Punjab on several occasions and was subjected to harassment and dowry demands during that period.

The statements disclosed allegations that Rs. 5 lakhs had been demanded shortly after marriage, that taunts were directed at the deceased for giving birth to a girl child, and that further demands were made both telephonically and in person by the in-laws.

The Court also noted allegations that the deceased had been driven out of her matrimonial home for non-payment of dowry and was allowed to return only after partial payment was arranged by her father.

It was also emphasised that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to evaluate the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

The Court observed that cruelty cannot be confined to a straitjacket formula and that allegations relating to gender-based discrimination and dowry-linked harassment must be examined at trial.

The Court further held that it could not be conclusively inferred at the preliminary stage that the suicide was caused solely by factors unconnected with the alleged demands made by the husband and in-laws.

Dealing with the argument that the deceased had killed her own child before committing suicide, the Court held that whether this act reflected cruelty on her part or was the result of extreme mental distress arising from sustained harassment was a matter requiring evidence. In a reflective observation, the Court noted that despite societal progress, the death of a girl child in such circumstances was a reminder that gender-based prejudice continued to persist.

Holding that the Sessions Judge had failed to consider the material on record in its proper perspective, the High Court concluded that the discharge order was unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the revision was allowed, the discharge order was set aside, and the in-laws were directed to appear before the Sessions Court, be released on bail in accordance with law, and face trial.

Case Title: State vs Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Sharma & Ors.

Bench: Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

Date of Judgment: 06.02.2026