Justice Sunder Mohan thus refused to interfere with the acquittal of a husband, who was charged under provisions for cruelty and dowry harassment after his wife committed suicide along with their child.

“In this case also, the fact that the second respondent had an illicit relationship has been proved. On facts, this Court is of the view that it was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide. It is well settled that in order to attract the offences under Section 498A of IPC, something more than mere illicit relationship has to be established by the prosecution, which is not so in this case,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the wife's brother against the husband's acquittal in the case.

As per the prosecution, the husband and wife had married in September 2008. The prosecution submitted that the wife was subjected to cruelty by the husband in connection with dowry demand, and he had an illicit relationship with another lady and refused to take good care of the wife and child. It was submitted that the wife committed suicide by jumping into the water along with her one-and-a-half-year-old child and hence, the husband was guilty of offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC.

The trial judge had acquitted the husband, noting that the prosecution had not established the dowry demand and thus the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act could not be drawn. The trial court also noted that there was not evidence to suggest that the husband had subjected the wife to cruelty, driving her to commit suicide.

The brother argued that the trial court had ignored his evidence and that of his mother and other witnesses with respect to the dowry demand and illicit relationship. It was argued that the mother had clearly deposed that her daughter was subjected to cruelty and the trial court's finding, without considering the evidence, was perverse and liable to be set aside.

The husband submitted that the prosecution had not established dowry demand or the fact that he had an illicit relationship.

The court noted that even though witnesses have made reference to the alleged dowry demand, the allegation was very vague and would only suggest that there was matrimonial difference on account of illicit relationship.

The court also noted that even as per the initial complaint of the brother, which was given for “woman missing”, the brother had not made any mention of dowry demand though he had gone to the extent of mentioning about the alleged illicit relationship.

The court held that while the trial court's finding that the illicit relationship was not established was perverse, such illicit relationship by itself would not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.

With respect to dowry demand, the court held that the allegation was improved by the prosecution witnesses, since the allegation was not made in the earliest versions.

Thus, on considering all the materials, the court held that the prosecution had not established the case, though the reasons for acquittal by the trial court could not be accepted. The court thus dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. K. Sudhakar

Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Sharada Vivek Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. V. Ayyapparaja