Failure Of Family To Act Despite Alleged Harassment Raises Doubt: Calcutta High Court Acquits Husband In 1987 Dowry Death Case

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a husband in a decades-old dowry death case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove allegations of cruelty and abetment of suicide beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant omissions in witness statements and unexplained delays in lodging the complaint.Justice Prasenjit Biswas observed that the testimonies of the deceased woman's relatives suffered from material contradictions and improvements when compared with their statements during the investigation. The Court also found their conduct in not taking any immediate action despite allegedly knowing about repeated harassment to be “unnatural”.The Court noted that the brother of the deceased, who was the de facto complainant, claimed that the victim had informed him multiple times about dowry-related torture. However, he did not lodge any complaint with the police prior to her death.The Court remarked: “Such inaction on the part of a brother, who claims to have been aware of persistent torture and unlawful demands, appears unnatural and inconsistent with normal human conduct.”It further observed that even after learning about the death of his sister under allegedly suspicious circumstances, the complainant did not immediately file a written complaint.The Court stated: “The absence of prompt action raises serious doubt regarding the veracity of his version.”The Bench also highlighted the delay in setting the criminal law in motion, noting that the complaint was filed before the Magistrate several days after the incident, without a convincing explanation.The Court found that the testimonies of the deceased's parents and sister-in-law also suffered from material omissions.The Investigating Officer testified that these witnesses had not stated during the investigation that the appellants tortured the deceased or demanded additional dowry.The Court held that such omissions strike at the root of the prosecution's case: “When crucial facts are absent in the statement made during investigation but are later introduced in Court, they assume the character of afterthoughts and cannot be accepted without caution.”Another factor considered significant by the Court was the conduct of the deceased's family members. Despite allegedly knowing about persistent harassment and demands for money, none of them approached the police or any local authority during the victim's lifetime.The Court observed that such silence was inconsistent with normal parental conduct in circumstances where a daughter is allegedly subjected to sustained cruelty.The case arose from a complaint filed by the deceased woman's brother, who alleged that his sister had been subjected to harassment and torture by her husband and mother-in-law for additional dowry.According to the prosecution, the woman was married to the first appellant in 1986. After the marriage, the appellants allegedly demanded more money from her parental family and subjected her to cruelty when the demands were not met.On July 31, 1987, the woman died by hanging at her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that the continuous harassment forced her to take the extreme step.The trial court convicted the husband and his mother under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. During the pendency of the appeal, the mother-in-law passed away and the proceedings against her abated.Case Title: Purna Chandra Raul & Anr. v. State of West BengalCase No.: C.R.A. 114 of 1990Click here to read order

Failure Of Family To Act Despite Alleged Harassment Raises Doubt: Calcutta High Court Acquits Husband In 1987 Dowry Death Case

Srinjoy Das

Tags