CHENNAI: Holding that a demand of Rs 50,000 for buying household articles for establishing a separate family cannot be construed as a demand of dowry, the Madras High Court has quashed the orders of a lower court (Mahalir Nedhimandram) in the city.
Accepting the arguments of senior advocate K Doraisamy, Justice P N Prakash ordered the acquittal of Sakthi, the husband, Muthuraj and Neela (parents-in-law) of the deceased Kalpana, recently.
The trial court on July 12, 2012, had awarded three years RI to Sakthi for an offence under Sec. 498-A (cruelty) and seven years RI under Section 304-B (dowry death) his father Muthuraj and mother Neela.
Kalpana married Sakthi in Vellore on February 2, 2006, and later moved to her matrimonial house in Chennai. She died on September 2, 2006.
The Vikkivakkam police registered a suicide case and the trial court awarded the sentence in 2012. Challenging this, the trio moved the Madras High Court with the present criminal appeal.
Among other things, senior advocate Doraisamy argued that it was a built-up case and the evidence of the witnesses was contradictory, not cogent and unreliable.
Justice Prakash said that from a conspectus of the facts obtained in this case, it is seen that there was no demand for dowry in connection with marriage as alleged by the prosecution.
It appears that there was a quarrel on September 1, 2006, during which, both the sides had abused each other. Muthuraj and Neela demanded Rs 50,000 for buying household articles for establishing a separate family. This cannot be construed as the demand of dowry, the judge said.
Moreover, the evidence on record shows that Kalpana was basically a sensitive person and the quarrel was working in her mind that drove her to suicide. Her parents started improving their allegations from time to time and approached the Human Rights Commission and advocates to build up a case of murder against the accused.
The judge found that the allegation is not found either in her statement to the Executive Magistrate or to the police. The postmortem report also does not disclose the existence of the injury on Kalpana's right hand, as alleged.
"In such perspective of the matter, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges albeit the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act," the judge said and allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the 2012 judgment of the lower court, and ordered the acquittal of the three accused.