Supreme Court warns against ‘over-implication’ of in-laws in dowry cases

Bench was hearing an appeal filed by the husband of the victim’s sister-in-law who was charged with harassment without any specific evidence showing his involvement in the commission of the offence in April 2011

The Supreme Court has warned State prosecution and the judiciary to guard against the danger of “over-implication” of in-laws in domestic harassment cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The word of caution was contained in a recent judgment by a Bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar.

The Bench was hearing an appeal filed by the husband of the victim’s sister-in-law. He was charged with harassment without any specific evidence showing his involvement in the commission of the offence in April 2011.

In fact, the court highlighted that the man had got married into the family a little over five months before the occurrence of the death.

The body of the victim was found with ligature marks on her neck and abrasions, which led her father to lodge a complaint with the Maharashtra Police. The woman’s father complained that his daughter was mentally and physically tortured by her husband and his relatives to cough up ₹5 lakh to buy a flat.

The sessions court and the Bombay High Court had dismissed the man’s plea of innocence. He had argued that there was no specific accusation or evidence against him.

In the apex court, the man said he did not even have an “opportunity to interact with the deceased much less to harass or to show cruelty to her”.

“It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over-implication is also reflected in a large number of cases,” Justice Ravikumar, who wrote the judgment for the Bench, observed.

The judgment said courts had to be careful to identify instances of over-implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences by persons like the appellant in this case.

Justice Ravikumar said the finding of guilt against the appellant was “absolutely perverse in view of the absolute absence of any evidence against him to connect him with the offence in any manner”.

Published - October 29, 2024 10:39 pm IST