Tears Alone Not Proof of Cruelty: Delhi HC Clears Husband, In-Laws in Dowry Harassment Case

The Court upheld the discharge of a husband and his family members in a dowry death and cruelty case.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the statements of the deceased’s brother and sister did not disclose even a prima facie case of harassment or dowry demand.

“Statement of the sister of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she also stated that on the occasion of 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,” the Court noted.

The case stemmed from the death of Ms. Shashi, who was married to Respondent No. 3, Bhagwan Swaroop, on December 5, 2010. The complainant, her father Gainda Lal, an auto-rickshaw driver, alleged that he had spent over Rs.4 lakhs on the wedding, beyond his means, and that his daughter was thereafter continuously harassed for dowry by her husband and in-laws.

He claimed that the accused demanded a gold bracelet, a motorcycle, and cash on multiple occasions. According to him, these demands intensified after the birth of Shashi’s second daughter. On March 31, 2014, Shashi died, leaving behind two daughters, one aged two and a half years and the other just 40 days old.

An FIR was registered on April 4, 2014, under Sections 304B, 498A, 34 IPC at P.S. Sangam Vihar. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed. However, the Additional Sessions Judge discharged the accused under Section 304B IPC, noting that medical evidence indicated Shashi had died of pneumonia, a natural cause. The case was remanded to the Magistrate for trial under Section 498A IPC.

Subsequently, the Magistrate discharged the accused under Section 498A as well, finding the allegations vague and inconsistent. This order was upheld in revision by the District and Sessions Judge, prompting the present petition before the High Court.

The petitioner argued that at the stage of framing charges, the defence of the accused could not be considered, and only the prosecution material had to be looked at. He stressed that his statements, along with those of other family members recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, specifically detailed the cruelty and dowry demands. It was further contended that the medical evidence had been wrongly interpreted, as there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the death, including froth noted around the mouth and nostrils in the medico-legal report, which were overlooked by the courts below.

The petitioner relied on precedents such as State of Orissa v. Devendra Nath Padhi and Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, to argue that the courts erred in assessing the credibility of evidence instead of only ascertaining whether a prima facie case existed.

The accused, on the other hand, denied all allegations and claimed that the petition was filed as a counterblast to a civil suit pending between the parties. They also argued that the petition was barred by limitation, having been filed belatedly without an accompanying application for condonation of delay.

Rejecting the plea, the Court emphasized that the post-mortem report attributed the cause of death to pneumonia, not cruelty. “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 Court said.

It also observed that the father neither mentioned specific incidents nor provided proof of giving money to the accused. “Such bald assertions, in the given situation, cannot be held to be even making out a prima facie case of harassment,” the Court added.

Accordingly, the petition challenging the discharge order was dismissed.