A Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising of Justice P. Velmurugan in the case of T. Wilson v. The District Collector & Ors. has observed that in-laws cannot escape liability in a case of demand for dowry and cruelty inflicted upon their daughter-in-law by their son, by claiming that they were living separately from their son and hence were not a party to the case.
“This Court has also considered several petitions, on such ground as the in-laws are not residing with their son and the victim women, and on that ground, they are seeking suspension of sentence.”
Background of the Case
In this case, the Petitioner got married to his deceased wife in 2016. He and his parents were accused of the death of his wife. It was alleged that they asked for dowry and treated the deceased victim with cruelty. The deceased wife was harassed regularly and she suffered mental agony because of which she committed suicide.
A case was registered by the respondent-Police against the first accused and the petitioners herein/ accused 2 & 3- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and 304 B of IPC. All the accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and each of them was asked to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, each of them was ordered to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of three months and acquitted them of the charge under Section 304-B of IPC.
Therefore, this appeal was filed seeking suspension of the sentence imposed on the petitioners/accused.
Submission of the Petitioner
The learned Counsel on the behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the parents of the petitioner were accused in the case. He contended that the parents were living separately and never resided under a single roof so there was no possibility for demanding dowry and causing cruelty. The Brother of the deceased didn’t make any claim related to dowry against the parents. So their punishment should be suspended.
Submission of the Respondent
The learned Counsel on the behalf of the Respondent submitted that there was a clear overt act against the first accused and he did not file an appeal against the Judgment. There are materials to show that the petitioners inflicted cruelty against the deceased and also demanded dowry and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of evidence, rightly convicted the petitioners.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court was worried about the rising cases of suicide by women due to dowry demand and also about the trend of in-laws escaping liability by claiming that they lived separately from their son and hence were not a party to the case. The Court concluded that in spite of the in-laws living separately- they induced their son in making a dowry demand, by way of, asking for money, jewels, two-wheelers, car etc.
The Court thus held that:
“Court has already considered several petitions, on such ground and taking advantage of that, a wrong message has gone to the Society that the parents can easily escape from their liability and the alleged offence."
The Court also pointed out that:
“mere giving a birth to a child, and providing shelter and good education, and motivating their child to get a job alone is not enough, and the first and foremost responsibility of the parents is that they should groom their children as responsible citizens.”
The Court was satisfied with the decision of the lower court and ordered that:
“by witnessing the nature and gravity of offence committed by the accused, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence.”
Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition as it did not find any merit in it and directed the Registry to call for records from the Court below within a week, prepare the typed set of papers and list the appeal under the caption for final hearing on 28.04.2021.
Case Details
Case: - Crl.M.P.No.2926 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.114 of 2021
Judge: Justice P. Velmurugan
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
