Petty Family Bickering Not Dowry Harassment: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Husband In Abetment FIR Where Wife Set Herself Ablaze

The Gujarat High Court recently upheld the acquittal of husband and his kin booked in a dowry death and abetment to suicide case, wherein the wife had died by suicide after setting herself ablaze. 

The trial court had in 2014 acquitted the husband and his kin who were booked under IPC Sections 498A(Cruelty), 306(abetment of suicide), 304B (Dowry Death) and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 

In doing so, the high court noted the wife's dying declaration made no whisper about any alleged dowry demands and only proved that there was some family bickering between deceased her husband and mother-in-law, underscoring that "every petty instance and family bickering" common in any family life, cannot be termed as harassment made in connection with demand for dowry. 

A Division Bench of Justice Cheekati M. Roy and Justice D. M. Vyas said,

 “Therefore, the predominant requirement, which is essential to prove the offence under Section 304-B is not established even from her dying declaration. Her statement in dying declaration, at best, only proves that there are some family bickering between her and her mother-in-law and also with her husband. Every petty instance and family bickering, which are common in any family life, cannot be construed as harassment made in connection with demand for dowry. To prove an offence under Section 304-B, as discussed supra, there must be definite evidence relating to harassment caused in connection with demand for dowry. As the same is not established even from the dying declaration of the deceased, it is of no any use to the prosecution to establish its case against the accused for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. There is absolutely no whisper at all regarding harassment caused for dowry in the dying declaration.”

The appeal was filed by the state challenging the judgement of the Trial Court that acquitted the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, the State's counsel contended the deceased's dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate clearly stated her mother-in-law harassed and quarreled with her which led her to commit suicide by setting herself ablaze. He then stated that her dying declaration is sufficient to prove the alleged offences.

The prosecution' case is that the deceased was legally wedded wife of accused no. 1 (husband) and they were married for four years. The couple had a son of a half year old and she was two months pregnant at the time of her death. She shared a strained relationship with her mother-in-law (accused no.3) and frequently harassed by her husband at the behest of his mother. It was alleged that they harassed and beat her even before the day of her death and demanded for additional dowry.

On failing to meet these demands, the husband called the deceased's mother to take her back. On 24 October 2013, following a quarrel over food with her mother-in-law, the deceased set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene in the morning. She was then rushed to Hospital, where her dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. She stated in her dying declaration that she was harassed by her husband and mother-in-law and had set herself ablaze after a quarrel. She passed away the same evening on 24.10.2013 and the doctor, who conducted autopsy over her dead-body opined that she died out of shock due to extensive burn injuries.

The next day, the deceased's mother lodged a police complaint, leading to the registration of a case under Sections 498A (Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband), 306 (Abetment to suicide), 304B (Dowry death), and 114 (Abetment when abettor is present) of IPC, along with Sections 3 (Penalty for giving or taking dowry) and 7(Cognizance of offences) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A chargesheet was later filed against all three accused.

Observations of the Court

The Court after thoroughly examining the records and evidence noted that to establish offence under Section 304B, the prosecution must prove that woman's death caused by burn or occurred under unnatural circumstances, within seven years of marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment which should be related to demand for dowry, further referred to Section 113 B which also requires proof of dowry related harassment before death to invoke presumption of dowry death. Every harassment, which is not relating to demand for dowry, will not come within the purview of the offence of dowry death.

The Court then noted that the deceased's mother who initially lodged an FIR, alleged dowry harassment turned hostile at the time of her testimony. The other witnesses including father, brother and maternal uncle of the deceased wife also turned hostile and provided no evidence of dowry demands or related to cruelty. Furthermore, the court noted, there is absolutely not even 'an iota of evidence on record' to prove that the accused made any illegal demand for dowry or that they have subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any such demand for dowry. Therefore, it noted that the basic prerequisites that are essential for the purpose of proving the offence of dowry death are absent as well as the presumption under the Evidence Act cannot be applied and the prosecution has 'failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.'

The Court then referred to the provision of abetment to suicide and found no evidence that the accused instigated or aided the deceased in taking her life, no proof of cruelty or dowry related harassment and the essential ingredients of abetment was also not established. Further, it noted that though the deceased died with seven years of marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act could not be applied, as the evidence did not meet the definition of 'cruelty' under Section 498A, and the provision of Dowry Prohibition Act were not made out. Thereafter, the court observed, “If the deceased, either because of her sensitive mind or of weak nature or emotional temperament, takes extreme decision of putting an end to her life in the normal family bickering that took place in the house, accused cannot be attributed with said conduct, so as to hold them responsible for the offence of abetment to commit suicide” and it does not establish the offence of abetment to commit suicide.

The Court then held, “Therefore, the learned trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same arrived at a right conclusion and recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. Upon considering the evidence and on reappraisal of the same, we also found that no case is made out for any of the charges levelled against the accused and that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under the law. So, it calls for no interference in this appeal. Ergo, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.”

The Court then dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgement of Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi that acquitted the respondent-accused.

Case Title: State of Gujarat vs Paresh Shantilal & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order