Ganesh Kendale
NEW DELHI: Expressing concern over misuse of provisions against dowry harassment by implicating various relatives of the husband along with main accused, SC said that “exaggerated versions” are reflected in a large number of complaints filed in such cases and urged courts to be careful while proceeding in such cases and protect the innocent from unnecessary sufferings.
Acquitting a person in a dowry death case, a bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar said he got married to the sister-in-law of the deceased after the allegation of dowry harassment was first made and he could not be convicted just because his wife was found guilty.
The issue of misuse of the provision has been flagged by the apex court and various high courts in their various judgements.
They held that general and omnibus allegations could not be a ground for prosecution and asked the courts to be cautious in dealing with such complaints.
Referring to an earlier verdict of the apex court, the bench said, “This Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases”.
“We are of the view that in view of such circumstances, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons,” the bench said.
The court noted that the accused got married to the sister of the main accused (husband) in Oct 2010 and the unfortunate incident resulting in her death occurred hardly within five and half months since he became a relative of the family.
“It is a fact that despite the general, vague allegation no specific accusation was raised against the appellant. That apart, despite our microscopic examination, we could not find any specific evidence brought out by the prosecution against the appellant herein through anyone of the witnesses.
In other words, the fact discernible from the impugned judgment is that none of the prosecution witnesses had specifically deposed against the appellant herein of his having committed any cruelty which will attract the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, against him,” it said.
“There is also no case that no complaints were filed implicating the appellant earlier to the subject FIR. In short, we find that there is no scintilla of evidence against the appellant herein to hold that he has committed the offence under Section 498-A, IPC… Being the husband of the second accused, who was found guilty by the courts below for the aforesaid offence cannot be a ground to hold the appellant guilty under the said offence in the absence of any specific material on record,” it said.
