New Delhi, Jan 27 A court here has convicted a man and his parents in connection with the suicide of his wife of nearly six years, citing that the woman was subjected to persistent dowry demands and allegations that she was assaulted in front of her parents hours before her death, which were "specific and not vague".
Additional Sessions Judge Shunali Gupta convicted Sachin under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty), while his parents Mani Ram and Dropadi were convicted under Section 498A and 34 (common intention).
On January 19, 2024, Jyoti was found hanging in her matrimonial home in south Delhi's Shanti Colony. The post-mortem report concluded that the cause of death was "asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging", the court noted.
The couple got married in July 2018.
Jyoti's mother and brother testified that at the time of the marriage, they had given various household articles, Rs 1 lakh, a gold chain, and a gold ring to Sachin. However, two years after the marriage, Jyoti was repeatedly harassed for bringing less dowry and was subjected to physical and mental cruelty over demands of Rs 5 lakh, allegedly sought by her husband to purchase an auto-rickshaw.
On January 1, Jyoti went to her paternal home to live with her mother for 15-17 days. On the night of January 18, Sachin physically assaulted Jyoti in front of her family. She was also forced to return to her matrimonial home by her husband and in-laws.
On January 19, hours before her death, Jyoti had a telephonic conversation with her mother where she disclosed Sachin was still continuously beating her. She was reported to be found hanging from the ceiling later that evening.
"The allegations are specific and not vague. They are date wise and also event wise," the court observed in the judgment dated January 22.
Commending the testimony given by Jyoti's mother, the judge said, "She stood by the test of the cross examination and nothing contradictory to the prosecution version came out during her cross examination that could impeach her credibility or mark any dent in the prosecution case."
In fact, the mother's deposition, "I must say, is of sterling quality, absolutely unimpeachable and categorical on all material aspects", the court said.
It further noted the testimonies of all three prosecution witnesses corroborated each other with no contradictions and remain "totally unimpeached and unblemished".
"It is clearly proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty just or soon before her death and there is a direct nexus between her death and dowry related cruelty inflicted upon her," the court observed.
The essential requirements of attracting the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act have been met, it noted and said, "In so far as accused Sachin is concerned, the prosecution by way of clear, cogent and reliable evidence has been able to establish that accused Sachin had caused cruelty upon deceased to meet his unlawful demand for dowry which led the deceased to commit suicide."
"In other words from the testimony of prosecution witnesses, prosecution has been able to discharge its initial onus and has established the essential requirements of law under Section 304B IPC whereas the accused Sachin has miserably failed to discharge the onus/rebut the presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act and could not prove on record that it was not a dowry death," added the court.
However, the court ruled that the role of Sachin's parents was limited to cruelty, noting the absence of specific allegations of harassment by them immediately preceding the death. Thus, the cause of death of the victim could not be linked to Sachin's parents "with certainty".
The court rejected the defence argument that the prosecution witnesses were "interested" as it said, "It cannot be ignored that such crimes are generally committed in four corners of matrimonial homes and in secrecy and hence, independent and direct evidence is ordinarily not available. Merely, that the prosecution witnesses happen to be family members does not take away the credibility of their testimony unless the veracity of the testimony is shaken."
The matter has been listed separately for hearing on sentence on January 30.
