The Supreme Court in, NIMAY SAH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND, acquits the man who was convicted for cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.  The court did not find substantial evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the man was actually liable.

Facts

Jharkhand HC upheld the decision of the trial court wherein the appellant was convicted for cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The appellant was the brother of the deceased’s husband. The accused was faced conviction along with his brother and father.

Prosecution’s Case

The deceased was harassed for the demand for the dowry of Rs. 10,000. Due to repeated harassment, the brother of the deceased brought her back to her parental home. The husband went there and took the deceased for a morning walk. After an hour he came back home and packed his bag and left, and upon being asked about the deceased he told that she was attending the call of nature. When she did not return the complainant(father) searched for her and she was found dead.

Charges Framed

Upon investigation, The accused persons were charged under Section 498­ A   read with   Section   34   IPC   and   Section   304­B   read with Section 34 IPC. Trial court ordered conviction and the same was upheld by HC. The brother of the accused was however dissatisfied and filed an appeal.

Contentions of Appellant

The counsel submitted that none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution story.  It was contended that the prosecution story comprises vague allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence as the entire family of the husband of the deceased has been roped up.

Court’s Observation

 The court observed that the role of the appellant is limited to the demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/­ at the time of vidai ceremony, and subsequently, harassment on non­payment of the same. Having perused the evidence presented the court was of the view that the ingredients of Section 498­A IPC have not been proved against the appellant­ by the prosecution at the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The court while acquitting the appellant finally stated, “It   ought   to   be   noted   that   apart   from   these   vague allegations,   no   specific   instance   of   hostile   attitude   or persistent demands of dowry have been pointed out by any of these witnesses.” The SC thus set aside the order of conviction by the HC.

Case Details

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.211 of 2011

Coram- Honble Justice N. V. RAMANA and Honble Justice SURYA KANT

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Chetan Nagpal