Delhi High Court acquits parents-in-law in dowry death case due to lack of sufficient evidence against them
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri [05-07-2024]

Read Order: SUSHILA @ MAYA DEVI & ANR v. STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI[DEL HC- CRL. A. 627/2002]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, July 15, 2024: The Delhi High Court has acquitted a mother-in-law and father-in-law who were convicted by a trial court for the offenses punishable under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty to married woman) of the Indian Penal Code.

The case pertains to the death of a woman named Neelam, who had died due to burn injuries at her matrimonial home in November 1993, within a year of her marriage. Neelam's husband Hari Om and his relatives, including his parents Sushila and Shankar Lal, were charged with subjecting her to cruelty and harassment for dowry. In July 2002, the trial court had convicted Sushila and Shankar Lal under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and sentenced them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. However, it had acquitted the other accused, including Hari Om. Challenging their conviction, Sushila and Shankar Lal filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court.

The high court analyzed the evidence on record in detail and found several discrepancies and improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the specific allegations of dowry demands. The court noted that in her complaint to the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell just a few days before her death, Neelam had not mentioned any specific demands for a color TV, fridge or cash as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. The allegations of dowry demands in her complaint were general in nature.

Further, the high court observed that some prosecution witnesses had admitted during cross-examination that they did not remember specific details of when the alleged cash amounts were paid to the appellant Sushila. One witness had also not mentioned in his earlier statement to the SDM about any "biradari" meeting held regarding dowry demands.

In view of the material contradictions and lack of conclusive proof, the High Court held that the allegations against Sushila and Shankar Lal were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it allowed their appeal and set aside their conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.