Fourteen Long Years

One more rational decision under section 304b and 498a of Indian Penal Code.

Delhi court acquitted Dinesh along with his other four family members of the charges of cruelly treating his wife for dowry death.

ADJ Pulastya Pramachala absolved East Delhi residents Dinesh Kumar Gautam, an air force employee with four other family members.

Dinesh and his family members were charged for the offences of woman subjected to cruelty by husband and his family members under section 498A Indian Penal Code and dowry death under section 304B  of the Indian Penal Code.

The judge said, "I find the allegations of demand and consequential cruelty and harassment are not based on any concrete facts and they have remained like general and vague allegations without having any corroboration,", while freeing the accused husband Dinesh and in-laws of deceased Savita, who was found hanging in her matrimonial house in 2000.

The court seriously relied on the statement made by Savita's daughter, who was present in the house when this unpleasant incident happened. daughter of the deceased stated that neither there was any dowry demand nor any such dispute between her grandmother and her mother had taken place.

"A tussle between a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, on grounds other than those related to dowry or other unlawful demands, is not a very uncommon feature of Indian households."

Society and time has changed a lot during the last few years how significant is the relation between daughter in law and mother in law is to be taken in to consideration.

Though the court stated in it’s judgement "However, all such tussles cannot be given color of an act of cruelty, so as to drive the victim to commit suicide, nor such tussle can be treated to be cruelty or harassment related with any unlawful demand".

The court observed that the suicide note of Savita did not allege any cruelty or dowry demand by her husband and in-laws. "From the suicide note, I find that there is no whisper of any kind of demand being made by the accused persons from the deceased (Savita). According to court since Savita was not happy for some reasons in her matrimonial house this is not appropriate to implicate the husband and his family members for convicted them for that they have not done.

According to the prosecution, on November 4, 2000, the woman was found hanging at her matrimonial house and her mother-in-law and other family members informed her parents who then lodged a complaint under section 498A Indian Penal Code and dowry death under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code with the police.

Savita‘s father told police that Savita (deceased) was harassed by her in-laws on account of dowry demands. Allegation made that Savita died after the torture of her in-laws. The mother and neighbours of the woman also deposed on the same lines but the noble court was not satisfied with the argument made by prosecution.

Defence stated that Savita and Dinesh were not residing with other family members who were made accused with Dinesh as he used to keep getting posted in various regions due to the nature of his job and hence the question of harassment did not arise and thus genuine.

The judge observed that on being aware of the fact that she was being beaten or harassed by her in-laws, why Savita’s father who himself is a business man didn't he take any action. "I am unable to comprehend that how could prosecution witness 2 (father of the deceased) remain action-less despite being told about such serious allegations by his daughter," the judge said.

In my opinion now a days it has become a tradition when a women dies unnaturally with in seven years of marriage her parental side files a case under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and if a women is not happy with her husband and other family members, falsely implicate the in laws under section 498a of Indian Penal Code.

Please take care of the sensitive gender bias issues in very delicate manner.