NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday quashed a dowry death case against a man whose wife died by suicide in Toronto, Canada, holding that calling her "stupid" and "useless" cannot to any extent qualify as an offence of cruelty or criminal intimidation.
The top court also observed that temperamental issue of spouse cannot be equated with offence of criminal intimidation.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Manmohan said there was no nexus established between the allegations levelled against the appellant and his family and the death of the deceased.
"To attract the rigours of Section 304B of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
"In this aspect, the prosecution has failed to produce before this Court any cogent evidence or material that may substantiate its claim that the appellant made illegal demands for dowry and that the said demand had a reasonable nexus to the suicide committed by the deceased-wife. In absence of any evidence to support the allegation of demand for dowry, the offence under Section 304B cannot be attracted," the bench said.
It said courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with such complaints and must have a pragmatic approach by taking into consideration the realities while dealing with matrimonial cases.
The bench said the allegations in such cases have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of law.
In the present case, the man had married the woman on January 3, 2021, and they subsequently moved to Toronto in February 2022. On June 11, 2023, the wife died by jumping from the 22nd floor of her residential apartment where she was residing with him.
A hand-written suicide note was recovered from the shared apartment in which the woman said she felt she had failed in life because she had been unable to find a job for over a year.
Her father lodged an FIR at Satara police station, Aurangabad, on June 30, 2023, under sections 304B (dowry death), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 498A (subjecting woman to cruelty) and 504 (intentional insult) read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The top court in its judgment said the allegations put forth by the father of the deceased with respect to mental and physical cruelty allegedly meted out by the man and his family, apart from the allegation of demand for dowry is not corroborated.
It said perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made with respect to grievous hurt and criminal intimidation are vague and omnibus.
"The allegation that the appellant used to call the deceased "stupid" and "useless," even if accepted prima facie, cannot to any extent qualify as an offence of cruelty or criminal intimidation. At best, it reflects on the temperament of the husband, but it cannot be given a criminal colour so grave as to become the reason for the suicide of his wife," it said.
The apex court said the allegation that the man was short tempered and used to scold the deceased over trifle issues is also not sustainable as no material evidence on record is available.
"A temperamental issue of a spouse cannot be equated with the offence of criminal intimidation or grievous hurt so as to make him criminally liable for the suicide of his wife as the same would tantamount to abuse of process of law, particularly when material in support of the same is conspicuous by its absence.
"We understand the plight and pain of the family members of the deceased who have gone through the tragedy of losing their daughter but the husband and the in-laws, cannot be made to bear the brunt of the same without first demonstrating any act or omission on their part that coerced the deceased to such an extent that committing suicide was the only way out," the bench said.
Merely stating that the accused indulged in verbal and physical cruelty, is insufficient by itself to raise a prima facie presumption that such acts and omissions could be the basis to set the criminal machinery in motion, it added.
"In cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be specific offending acts, which the complainant would be required to spell out in specific terms against the perpetrators in order to implicate them in the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated.
"Mere general allegations of harassment, without specifics against such persons, would not suffice to continue criminal proceedings. This holds true even when the prosecution seeks to establish a reasonable nexus between the commission of suicide and the alleged harassment, cruelty, and criminal intimidation," the bench said.
