The Kerala High Court upheld the acquittal of three co-accused in a dowry harassment case, emphasizing the need for direct evidence under Section 498A of the IPC. The victim, Girijakumari, died shortly after her marriage, and allegations of cruelty were based on hearsay. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s assessment of evidence.
Kerala: The Kerala High Court has upheld the acquittal of three co-accused in a dowry harassment case, reiterating that convictions under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) require direct and cogent evidence, dismissing hearsay accounts. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, delivered this verdict in a case involving the death of a woman, Girijakumari, who died of poisoning four months after her marriage in 2006.
The prosecution alleged that Girijakumari was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and in-laws, including harassment for dowry. Her father and a relative (PW2) testified that she had informed them about her in-laws’ demands for gold and money. The husband’s family reportedly pledged her gold ornaments to fund the construction of a relative’s house. On the day of her death, the husband allegedly laced a banana with poison, claiming it was part of a mutual suicide pact, but only she consumed it.
In 2014, the trial court convicted the husband for murder under Section 302 IPC but acquitted all accused under Section 498A IPC, citing a lack of direct evidence.
The victim’s father appealed the acquittal of the co-accused under Section 498A IPC. The court, referencing cases like Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) and Tota Singh v. State of Punjab (1987), observed that appeals against acquittals must demonstrate compelling errors in law or fact to justify interference.
Upon scrutinizing the evidence, the court found that the witnesses’ testimonies were based solely on hearsay statements from the victim before her death. It stated, “It does not reveal anything about the date or month or the nature of physical or mental harassment allegedly meted out to Girijakumari.” The court noted the lack of specific details about incidents and deemed the allegations vague.
The High Court concluded that the trial court had correctly assessed the evidence and upheld its acquittal order. The appeal was dismissed for being devoid of merit, with the court affirming that allegations under Section 498A IPC require substantiated, direct evidence.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
