Some Acquittal Judgement in 498A.
The Aquittal in 498A depends on certain principles of law which may be common in the cases however the facts of the case may change as per the circumstances but the principles remain the same.
Now what are these principles. Through this article I will test those principles and show you one or two principles are there in false 498a. Therefore the acquittal is important.
The First Principal is contradiction in 161 Statement.
Wife may give some statement in 161 statement and can give another improved statement before the court. The contradiction in 161 statement as compared to complaint as to the statement given the court can form the grounds of aquittal
In State vs . Pawan Yadav Etc. Fir 285/12 … on 29 January, 2018 The arguments before me are full of factual narrations and advanced in a manner to show that the drastic Improvements and material contradictions are such that go to the root of the Prosecution case thereby rendering them so improbable that the defence seems to be more probable rather than the attack.
Of course, there has been development of case from stage to stage by PW4, PW5 and PW18 as is evident from bare readings of their first statements to the SDM and subsequently on 16.11.2012 to the case IO. Even retraction from earlier statement by PW5 is present in this case regarding amount of Rs.6 lacs given as dowry for purchase of a Car at the time of Marriage. I shall touch upon these improvements in succeeding Paragraphs of this Judgment. Before that, it is very important to point out that a specific question was put by the defence to PW5 during his crossexamination recorded in the Court on 03.05.2016 and as per him the specific dates of ill treatment to his sister by accused persons are 10.04.2012 and 06.11.2012.
Interested witnesses
If there is no independent corroboration of alleged facts in the case then the case of the prosecution is weak and the accused can be acquitted on this alone.
In State vs . Anil Kumar on 23 January, 2015
PW2 and PW3 are only interested witnesses being brother and bhabhi of complainant. Further even from the testimony on record of PW2 and PW3 the allegations of offence under section 498A IPC against accused are not proved. Even PW2 has admitted that his sister has remarried. In view of the aforesaid I hold that prosecution has failed to establish the kind of cruelty as prescribed under section 498 A IPC, and thus accused deserves acquittal.
In Lakhan Deka & Anr. Vs State of Assam https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48390247/ it was held that in order to convict a person u/s 498A, the prosecution is duty bound to prove that the demand of dowry was made to the victim and for that purpose the victim was tortured.
Another important factor that was looked upon by the court was, that all the independent were declared hostile and evidence and statements were very vague to bring home the guilt for the accused.
In The State of Maharashtra Vs Sahebrao Ramrao Muthe & Ors https://www.legitquest.com/case/the-state-of-maharashtra-v-sahebrao-ramrao-muthe-and-ors/E8822 it was held that independent witnesses are a must. Here in this case the prosecution did not examine any witness from the village where the wife was residing along with her husband. All the witnesses examined were close relatives of the wife. Hence due to close relationship of witnesses with the wife, close scrutiny of their
No entrustment of Dowry Article to specific person
The bare perusal of complaint Ex. PW1/B and evidence of complainant PW-1, there is no specific statement qua entrustment of any articles in favour of any accused. Moreover, the complainant nowhere states as to whom those articles were entrusted and at what time and under what circumstances. In her testimony in the court, the complainant only made a sweeping statement that all her jewellery articles have not been returned and they are still in possession of accused Dhanno Devi. From the aforesaid piece of evidence even the basic requirement of entrustment having been made in favour of any of the accused is not established. The complainant has also not stated that on what date, time, year or occasion she demanded her jewellery articles from whom and at what place.
Vague and no Specific allegation
In Shivendra Raizada & Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 6 December, 2018
Secondly, so far as allegation against the applicants are concenred, that is also absolutely in the teeth of law laid down by the Apex Court and it is very much clear that there is no specific allegation against any of the applicants and allegations are also levelled upon the applicants, who are even not residing along with applicant No. 1. In fact, it is necessarily required to make specific allegation against each and evey applicants whose names are mentioned in the complaint or FIR in the matrimonial cases which is absolutely missing in this case.
These principles are perfect examples whatever the facts are however these principles are not a complete list there can be more principles.
In Mohan Raj & Ors. vs STATE the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that bald allegations by the the petitioner wife about demand of dowry and cruelty are hard to believe. The complaint by the wife was bereft of any details like the dates on which the demand of dowry was made or mental or physical cruelty was committed on her. There were no specific allegations about the alleged acts of dowry demand and cruelty in her evidence as well as cross examination. Thus, the court held that allegations without any corroborative evidence are just bald allegations and cannot be relied upon by the courts. Therefore on the failure of prosecution to lead any evidence, the husband and the family members were acquitted. Cryptic allegations without any elaborations as to what sort of torture was made can never be trusted.
The court after referring to plethora of judgments of other High Courts as well as the Supreme Court, was of the firm opinion that, in order to convict a person under section 498A IPC, there must be evidence to prove that willful conduct of the person drove a woman to commit suicide r to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (mental or physical).
Nitish Banka is an advocate practicing in Supreme Court of India and can be reached at [email protected] or 9891549997
