Supreme Court acquits man in dowry death case, flags repeated errors by trial courts
text_fields
The Supreme Court on Friday overturned the conviction of a man accused of cruelty and causing the dowry-related death of his wife, emphasising that trial courts continue to make the same mistakes in such cases.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the case lacked the "essential ingredient" required to establish aSupreme Court acquits man in dowry death case, flags repeated errors by trial courts
dowry death charge. The court pointed out that witness statements failed to provide specific instances of cruelty or harassment.
“This court has repeatedly explained the legal requirements under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), yet trial courts continue to commit the same errors. It is time for state judicial academies to intervene. Perhaps, this is a case of moral conviction rather than legal proof,” the bench stated.
The judges noted that during her testimony, the victim’s mother did not cite any particular act of cruelty or harassment by the husband. “This is a crucial element under Section 304B, and the prosecution failed to establish it with evidence,” the bench added.
As both charges against the accused were not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court and trial court orders, acquitting him.
The case involved the man and his parents, who were tried under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. While the trial court acquitted his parents, it convicted the man.
The couple had married on June 25, 1996, and the wife died by suicide on April 2, 1998 - within seven years of marriage, which is a crucial factor in establishing a dowry death charge under Section 304B. A postmortem confirmed that she died of asphyxia due to hanging.
Three key witnesses - her mother, brother, and maternal uncle - testified in the case. Both the trial and high courts relied on the statements of the mother and brother to convict the accused. However, the Supreme Court ruled that their testimonies lacked the necessary legal basis to uphold the conviction.