The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court recently acquitted a man who had been convicted of subjecting his wife to cruelty, abetting her suicide and offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, while observing that when the trial court itself found that the husband had no contact or communication with his wife for more than five months before she took the extreme step, it could not be said that he abetted her act.
The court said the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act was made out as per the facts of the case. (For Representation)
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the judgment on July 31 while allowing the criminal appeal filed by the husband. The court also observed that under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, not only taking dowry but also giving it is a punishable offence.
However, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman’s father had paid ₹6 lakh as dowry, the court said neither the offence relating to taking dowry nor the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act was made out on the facts of the case.
The court was dealing with the husband’s appeal against the trial court’s judgment convicting him under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, while acquitting him of the offence under Section 304-B IPC. This case was related to the Alambagh police station area, Lucknow.
As per the prosecution’s case, the woman (now deceased) married the appellant on December 14, 2004. It was alleged that after the marriage, the appellant and his family members demanded ₹10 lakh as dowry for purchasing a flat.
The woman’s father allegedly sold a plot of land and paid ₹6 lakh in cash, but the appellant continued to demand the remaining ₹4 lakh and harassed the woman. She ultimately died by suicide on October 2, 2010.
Accordingly, the high court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The court acquitted the appellant-husband of all charges and directed his release subject to compliance with Section 437-A CrPC. The court also directed that the fine deposited by the appellant be refunded.
