In a ruling scrutinising the evidentiary threshold in dowry death cases, the Delhi High Court dismissed a father’s plea against the discharge of his daughter’s husband and in-laws, emphasising that bare assertions of harassment cannot sustain criminal charges. Observing that vague and uncorroborated allegations do not disclose an offence under Sections 498A or 304B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that “merely because the deceased was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment.”
The case stemmed from a complaint by Gainda Lal, father of the deceased Shashi, who alleged that his daughter was harassed for dowry following her marriage to Bhagwan Swaroop in 2010. He claimed persistent demands were made for a gold bracelet, a motorcycle, and cash, and that Shashi was subjected to cruelty, culminating in her death in March 2014. An FIR was registered under Sections 304B, 498A, and 34 IPC.
However, the post-mortem attributed her death to pneumonia. On the strength of this medical evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge discharged the accused under Section 304B IPC, remanding the matter to the Magistrate to consider charges under Section 498A. The Magistrate found no specific or substantiated material to establish harassment and discharged the accused, a decision that was upheld by the Sessions Court in 2017. Hence, the present petition was filed before the High Court.
The petitioner argued that at the stage of framing charges, only the prima facie allegations in statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) should have been considered, and not the defence of the accused. He further claimed that there were contradictions in the medical record that warranted a trial for dowry death.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “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 recorded that the father’s assertions lacked dates, documentary proof, or credible corroboration, stating, “Such bald assertions, in the given situation, cannot be held to be even making out a prima facie case of harassment.” The Court also observed that the statements of the deceased’s siblings about finding her crying during Holi were insufficient and stated, “The statements of the brother, Sunny and sister, Poonam also in no way establish even prima facie that Shashi was being harassed by her in-laws for meeting their demands.”
Concluding that there was no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court, the Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Case Title: Gainda Lal Vs. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 4785/2017
Coram: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Gurbaksh Singh and Arjun Dhamija
Advocates for Respondent: APP Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Advs. M. T. Malik, Arnab Malik, SI Rahul Rathi
Picture Source :
