Calcutta High Court Acquits In-Laws In S.498A IPC Case, Says Hostile Neighbours & Contradictory Family Testimony Undermine Prosecution
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a mother-in-law and brother-in-law under Section 498A IPC, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish any consistent or reliable evidence of cruelty or dowry harassment. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das delivered the judgment on November 24, 2025.The trial court had sentenced the appellants to two years' rigorous imprisonment in...
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a mother-in-law and brother-in-law under Section 498A IPC, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish any consistent or reliable evidence of cruelty or dowry harassment. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das delivered the judgment on November 24, 2025.
The trial court had sentenced the appellants to two years' rigorous imprisonment in 2003, though it had acquitted them of the more serious charge of dowry death under Section 304B IPC.
The High Court noted major discrepancies in the narrations of the victim's siblings. Despite alleging long-term torture and dowry demands, they were unable to state any dates, incidents, or prior complaints, and no report was ever made to authorities.
The Court observed that these inconsistencies “certainly create a cloud” over the prosecution's case and that the evidence was “not sufficient to prove the ingredients to attract Section 498A beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The judge also highlighted the unusual conduct of the complainant's family, noting that one brother admitted inviting the accused to his wedding nearly three years after the alleged harassment. The Court remarked that this “clearly manifest[s] no inimical relationship existed between the parties,” contradicting the prosecution's narrative of persistent cruelty.
Background
Three neighbours testified that they had never seen the victim being ill-treated and that on the day of the incident, the accused family members were not at home. They stated that the victim herself said the fire started from a gas cylinder.
Their account, supported by a defence witness, led the Court to conclude that “the local witnesses did not support the prosecution in any manner.”
The autopsy surgeon testified that the burn injuries “seem to be suicidal in nature,” subject to corroboration. The inquest report mentioned kerosene, but the investigating officer failed to seize any material linking kerosene to the incident. The Court noted this lapse, observing that “no article was seized to substantiate use of kerosene” and that the post-mortem report was also silent.
The Court found it significant that the prosecution neither charged nor examined the husband. Noting that he would have been “the best person to narrate the entire situation,” the Court said the omission “weakens the prosecution case further.”
Reiterating Supreme Court precedent that vague, omnibus allegations against in-laws cannot sustain conviction, the Court held that the evidence in the case fell far short of the standard required.
Thus, Justice Das held that “no unambiguous conclusion can be arrived at that she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws,” and therefore the conviction under Section 498A could not be upheld.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were discharged from their bail bonds.
Case: RANJIT SAHA VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR
Case No: CRA 14 OF 2004