Merely Because Deceased Was Seen Crying Doesn't Prove She Was Harassed For Dowry: Delhi High Court In Dowry Death Case
While upholding discharge of a husband and his family members in a dowry death and cruelty case, the Delhi High Court has observed merely because the deceased was seen crying cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the statements of the brother and sister of the deceased did not establish even prima facie that the deceased was being harassed...
While upholding discharge of a husband and his family members in a dowry death and cruelty case, the Delhi High Court has observed merely because the deceased was seen crying cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the statements of the brother and sister of the deceased did not establish even prima facie that the deceased was being harassed by her in laws for meeting their alleged demands.
“Statement of sister of the deceased under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she also stated that on the occasion of Holi, she had called her sister and found her crying. However, merely because the deceased was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment,” the Court said.
The Court rejected the plea filed by the father of the deceased challenging the discharge of the husband and his parents for the offences of dowry death and cruelty.
It was alleged that after the marriage, his daughter was continuously humiliated and tortured for not bringing sufficient dowry and demands were made of gold bracelet, bike and other articles. However, it was alleged that when the demands were not met, his daughter was mentally tortured because of which she died.
Dismissing the plea, the Court noted that the Post-Mortem report of the deceased said that she died on account of Pneumonia, a fact which was considered duly by the trial court while discharging the accused for the offence of dowry death.
“In the present case, to bring in the clause of cruelty leading to the death of the woman, it may be noted that the deceased had died not because of any act of cruelty but for natural reasons, as stated by CW-1 and rightly noted by learned ASJ. Therefore, Clause (a) to the Explanation annexed to Section 498A IPC is not attracted,” the Court said.
It added that the father had neither given any date nor given any proof of giving any money, especially when he himself stated that he was an Auto driver and had financial constraints. Such bald assertions, in the given situation, cannot be held to be even making out a prima facie case of harassment, the Court said.
Further, the Court said that the Complaint of the father, aside from vague assertions that there was a constant demand of money, did not mention about specific incidents.
Title: GAINDA LAL v. STATE & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 975