Telangana High Court ( Photo | EPS)
Telangana High Court ( Photo | EPS)

Telangana High Court upholds trial court order in ‘dowry death’ case

The bench held that a conviction for offence (dowry demand) under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act cannot be based on vague statements.

HYDERABAD: Making it clear that interference with an acquittal order falls within a very limited scope, a division bench of the Telangana High Court has recently upheld the order of the trial court in acquitting the accused of offences under various sections of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The bench held that a conviction for the offence (dowry demand) under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act cannot be based on vague statements. The bench was dismissing an appeal filed by the complainant Nomula Janga Reddy challenging the legality of the order of the trial court which has acquitted the accused in an alleged dowry death case.

As for the case, the appellant’s second daughter Saritha (deceased) was married to one Rajender Reddy in 2005. According to Janga Reddy, at the time of marriage, he gave a dowry of Rs 6.3 lakh in cash and gold ornaments. After a year, trouble started with husband and in-laws harassing his daughter for more dowry.  Unable to bear their alleged torture, his daughter hanged herself in July 2009.  A case was registered and her husband inlaws arrested.

After analysing the evidence, the trial court passed the order in March 2012 acquitting all the accused. Aggrieved with the same, the complainant filed the present appeal before the high court division bench.
The appellant’s counsel contended that though the essential ingredients were established by the prosecution under Section 304-B IPC, the trial court has acquitted the husband and in-laws in the case.  

Supporting the impugned judgment, the additional public prosecutor contended that the testimonies of the complainant were vague. As for the allegation of ‘dowry demand’, the additional public prosecutor said that it was a not a ‘dowry demand’, but financial assistance that was asked by husband to help his brother set up a factory.  After hearing both sides, the bench said that the testimonies of the witnesses reveal that the reason for asking more money was for investing it in the factory. No concrete details were given to prove ‘dowry demand’.

Further, the bench pointed out that neither the complainant narrated a single instance of when and how the deceased was subjected to physical or mental cruelty. Therefore, the trial court was justified in concluding that there was no evidence that the victim was subjected to any harassment for dowry demand, the bench said and dismissed the appeal.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com