Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently asked the courts to be careful to identify instances of over-implication in dowry harassment cases and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar set aside the conviction of Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode, a man implicated in a dowry harassment case solely due to his relation to the deceased woman.

"It is only appropriate to keep reminded of the observations of this court in the decision in Preeti Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand (2010). This court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases," the bench said.

Examining the materials on record, the court noted that the main instance of demand for Rs 5 lakhs for the purpose of purchasing residential flat was allegedly occurred since January, 2010 onwards. But then, the evidence on record showed that the marriage between the appellant and Savita (accused No 2) who was one of the sisters of the first accused/husband was conducted much later viz, only on October 26, 2010. 

The unfortunate incident resulting in her death occurred hardly within five and half months since he became a relative of the family of the husband of the deceased, court pointed out. 

"It is a fact that despite the general, vague allegation no specific accusation was raised against the appellant. That apart, despite our microscopic examination, we could not find any specific evidence brought out by the prosecution against the appellant herein through anyone of the witnesses. In other words, the fact discernible from the impugned judgment is that none of the prosecution witnesses had specifically deposed against the appellant herein of his having committed any cruelty which will attract the offence under Section 498-A, IPC," the bench said.

The court said there was also no case that complaints were filed implicating the appellant earlier to the subject FIR. 

"In short, we find that there is no scintilla of evidence against the appellant herein to hold that he has committed the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, even with the aid of Section 34, IPC. Being the husband of the second accused, Savita, who was found guilty by the courts below for the aforesaid offence cannot be a ground to hold the appellant guilty under the said offence in the absence of any specific material on record," the bench said.

In the case, Renuka, the victim, was married to the first accused Rajesh Jagan Karote on December 11, 2008. Rajesh Jagan Karote and his relatives allegedly demanded dowry for purchasing a residential flat and used to torture her physically and mentally, resulting into her unnatural death on April 16, 2011.

After the joint trial, all the accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34, IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each.

In appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant but reduced his sentence to the period already undergone. 

The appellant was aggrieved since pursuant to his conviction and consequent sentence he was terminated from the post of Laboratory Attendant, Balbheem College, Beed, as per order of November 23, 2015.

He contended he had not even had the opportunity to interact with the deceased much less to harass or to show cruelty to her. 

His counsel contended that the said circumstances and the conspicuous absence of specific accusation and lack of any specific evidence against the appellant revealed that the implication of the appellant in the case was because of the unwholesome attitude over implication, which was deprecated by the top court. 

Allowing the appeal, the bench said the finding of guilt against the appellant by the courts below for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC was absolutely perverse in view of the absolute absence of any evidence against him to connect him with the said offence in any manner.

Referring to the Preeti Gupta case, the bench said, "We are of the view that in view of such circumstances, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons."

The court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment of 2020 and that of the sessions court of 2014 and acquitted the appellant.

Case Title: Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr