The Calcutta High Court has overturned the conviction of a mother-in-law and a brother-in-law who had been sentenced under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for alleged cruelty to a daughter-in-law. The judgment was delivered by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das. The original trial court had sentenced the appellants to two years rigorous imprisonment back in 2003; however, it had acquitted them of the more serious dowry death charge under Section 304B IPC. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish cruelty or dowry harassment beyond a reasonable doubt, and set aside the conviction and sentence.
In its detailed reasoning, the High Court pointed out substantial inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the victim’s siblings, who had claimed long-term torture and regular dowry demands. Despite such serious allegations, they were unable to recall or pinpoint dates or specific incidents of harassment. The Court also noted that no prior complaint or report had been filed with authorities — neither police nor other forums — by the alleged victim or her family, during the period when the purported cruelty was taking place. According to the High Court, this absence of contemporaneous complaints seriously weakened the credibility of the prosecution’s story. The Court observed that the testimony of these witnesses created a “cloud” over the prosecution’s case, rendering it unreliable.
Further, the High Court scrutinized the attitude of the complainant’s family, highlighting a surprising inconsistency: nearly three years after the date when harassment was alleged to have taken place, one of the complainant’s brothers invited the accused in-laws to his wedding — indicating that the relationship between the families was not hostile as would be expected if cruelty had indeed occurred. This conduct, the Court said, manifestly contradicted the narrative of continuous harassment and hostility, undermining the core allegations.
Independent neighbour witnesses called by the prosecution also failed to support the claim of cruelty. Three neighbours deposed that they had never seen the victim being ill-treated, and in fact on the day of the fatal incident, they asserted that none of the accused family members were present at the house. They further stated that the victim herself had acknowledged that the fire originated from a gas cylinder, not as a result of any assault or act inflicted by the accused. A defence witness corroborated these statements. The Court found this collective evidence persuasive enough to reject the prosecution’s version of events.
On the question of cause of death, the autopsy surgeon had testified that the burn injuries “seem to be suicidal in nature,” subject to corroboration. The inquest report mentioned kerosene as a possible accelerant, but the investigating officer failed to seize any container for kerosene or other material evidence to support that theory. The post-mortem report was likewise silent on such details. The Court flagged this as a significant procedural and evidentiary lapse, noting that the prosecution had not mustered any material evidence linking the accused to the use of kerosene or other fuel. Given these failures, the Court concluded that the chain of causation required for conviction — connecting cruelty or dowry harassment to the fatal incident — was broken.
Additionally, the High Court observed that the prosecution did not examine the husband of the victim. The Court said that as the husband would have been best placed to narrate the domestic situation and events leading to the tragedy, his absence as a witness substantially detracted from the credibility of the prosecution’s case. It described this omission as a serious gap, further eroding confidence in the overall narrative advanced against the in-laws.
The Court referred to established Supreme Court precedents underscoring that vague or omnibus allegations against in-laws cannot sustain conviction under Section 498A. Applying those principles, the Court concluded that the evidence on record did not meet the rigorous standard of proof required. The testimonies were inconsistent, independent witnesses were hostile or did not support the case, no material evidence was seized, and there was no reliable timeline or contemporaneous complaint to corroborate the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment. On this basis, the Court held that no unambiguous conclusion could be drawn that the victim had suffered cruelty at the hands of the in-laws.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, set aside the sentence, and discharged the appellants from their bail bonds. The judgment underscores that allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment must be supported by credible, consistent, and corroborated evidence — and that the absence of such evidence warrants acquittal.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.