In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has acquitted a 33-year-old agriculturist from Pune, previously convicted by lower courts on charges of dowry-related demands and physical assault. The court determined that the man’s dissatisfaction over not being served food on silver plates during the marriage was a fleeting concern and did not constitute a legitimate dowry demand. Furthermore, the court noted that the couple later cohabited amicably, highlighting that the prosecution did not establish the dowry demand with sufficient evidence.
The accused had been convicted under Section 498A (cruelty against a woman by her husband or relatives) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Initially, a Magistrate court sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of 500, while his family members were acquitted. The Sessions court later upheld this conviction.
The prosecution presented a case claiming that the man and his family subjected the woman, a government clerk, to physical and mental harassment over two years, with allegations including demands for silver plates, gold rings, and other financial demands during the marriage. They also accused him of physical abuse and emotional torment directed towards her.
In defense, the man’s legal team argued against the allegations, citing inconsistencies between the medical evidence provided and the testimonies of witnesses. They contended that the accusations were baseless and aimed at creating a false narrative.
Justice Shivkumar Dige of the Bombay High Court emphasized the lack of substantive evidence linking any assault to a dowry demand. He noted, “While a doctor treated the woman post-assault, it has not been established that the assault was motivated by dowry demands. Furthermore, no independent witnesses were called to substantiate the claims made against the accused.”
The judge reinforced the need for clear evidence in cases involving dowry demands and accusations of cruelty, stating, “To establish claims of dowry demand and cruelty, robust evidence is essential. The lower courts overlooked the failure of the prosecution to prove their allegations beyond doubt. Though the applicant was displeased by the lack of silver plates initially, it was a temporary issue, and they later lived together happily. There are evident inconsistencies in the testimonies regarding the alleged dowry demands.”
The couple, who married in 2001, also has a child together.
