Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court made it clear that making general and vague statements without providing a single instance of being subjected to physical or mental cruelty for dowry could not be made a case under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The court upheld the trial court’s decision acquitting a man, in-laws and his sibling in a case lodged for alleged dowry death (IPC 304-B) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court held that no evidence was found before the woman committed suicide that she was subjected to any harassment for dowry.
A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Tadakamalla Vinod Kumar clarified that a conviction for offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be imposed based on vague statements without having cogent and convincing evidence.
Saritha committed suicide in 2009 at her in-laws’ house. Following this, her father, Mr Nomula Janga Reddy, lodged a complaint with the police that his daughter had committed suicide due to harassment for additional dowry. Saritha’s husband and in-laws and his sibling were arrested and the case put on trial. In 2012, the trial court acquitted the accused on the grounds of no evidence being produced for dowry harassment.
Aggrieved by the trial court judgment, Mr Janga Reddy filed an appeal in the High Court. While examining the facts, the bench examined the testimonies of Saritha’s relatives, who do not claim that ‘soon before her death’ she was subjected to any physical or mental cruelty. One witness gave testimony that financial assistance was asked by the accused family to set up a factory.
Before upholding the acquittal of the accused, the bench noted that there was no other evidence except the oral testimonies of interested witnesses and contradictions within the testimonies of the witnesses with regard to the amount of dowry given. Recalling the settled principle of law that interference with an acquittal order falls within a very limited scope, if a reasonable view has been taken by the trial court, the appellate court ordinarily should not interfere with the acquittal order, the Division Bench of High Court dismissed the appeal.
