Court Finds Lack of Evidence for Cruelty or Abetment of Suicide in Two-Month-Old Marriage
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of Kamal, accused under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in a case involving the death of his wife, Preeti, within two months of their marriage. The court found insufficient evidence to support allegations of cruelty and abetment of suicide connected to dowry demands.
The court, comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain, reviewed the appeal filed by the State against the trial court's decision dated September 20, 2012, which acquitted Kamal of the charges. The bench observed that the prosecution failed to establish foundational facts necessary for invoking the statutory presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 117 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
Preeti's death occurred within two months of her marriage to Kamal on June 8, 2006. Her body was discovered in a drain in Najafgarh, leading to suspicions of foul play. However, initial reports by her father, Chander Shekhar, did not indicate any suspicion of foul play, and it was only after the discovery of her body that allegations of dowry-related harassment emerged.
The court noted that the trial court had meticulously analyzed evidence, finding significant contradictions and improvements in the statements of key witnesses, including Preeti's parents and brother. These discrepancies undermined the credibility of claims regarding dowry demands and harassment.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the absence of direct evidence linking Kamal to acts of cruelty or abetment. The trial court's judgment observed that even if instances of dowry demand were true, they did not constitute abetment, as Preeti had ample time to cool down after returning to her parental home, where she later died.
The High Court also pointed out that the prosecution did not adequately investigate letters written by Preeti expressing affection for Kamal, nor did it gather testimonies from her friends, who might have shed light on her state of mind.
Given these considerations, the court ruled that there was no compelling reason to overturn the trial court's decision, emphasizing that an acquittal cannot be reversed simply because an alternative view is possible. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Kamal's bail bond was canceled, with his surety discharged.
Bottom Line:
Acquittal for charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC upheld due to lack of evidence proving cruelty or abetment of suicide, with prosecution failing to establish foundational facts for statutory presumption under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 117 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 498A, 306; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 113A; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 117; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 313.
