Demanding money to set up house not dowry?

  • | Friday | 13th December, 2019

Accepting arguments of senior advocate K Doraisamy, Justice P N Prakash ordered the acquittal of Sakthi, the husband, and Muthuraj and Neela (parents-in-law) of the deceased Kalpana, recently. Kalpana got married to Sakthi at Vellore on February 2, 2006, and later moved to her matrimonial house in Chennai. Muthuraj and Neela appear to have demanded Rs 50,000 for buying household articles for establishing a separate family. This cannot be construed as demand of dowry, the judge said. ‘No dowry demand’Justice Prakash said that from a conspectus of the facts obtained in the case, it is seen that there was no demand of dowry in connection with marriage

By Express News Service CHENNAI: Holding that a demand of Rs 50,000 for buying household articles for establishing a separate family cannot be construed as a demand of dowry, the Madras High Court has quashed the orders of a lower court (Mahalir Nedhimandram). Accepting arguments of senior advocate K Doraisamy, Justice P N Prakash ordered the acquittal of Sakthi, the husband, and Muthuraj and Neela (parents-in-law) of the deceased Kalpana, recently. The trial court on July 12, 2012, had awarded three years RI to Sakthi for an offence under Sec 498-A (cruelty) and seven years RI under Sec 304-B (death in unnatural circumstances), to his father Muthuraj and mother Neela. Kalpana got married to Sakthi at Vellore on February 2, 2006, and later moved to her matrimonial house in Chennai. She died on September 2, 2006. Vikkivakkam police registered a suicide case and the trial court awarded the sentence in 2012. Challenging this, the trio moved the Madras High Court with the present criminal appeal. Among other things, senior advocate Doraisamy argued that it was a built-up case and the evidence of the witnesses were contradictory, not cogent and unreliable. Justice Prakash said that from a conspectus of the facts obtained in this case, it is seen that there was no demand of dowry in connection with marriage as alleged by the prosecution. It appears that there was a quarrel on September 1, 2006, in which, both the sides had abused each other. Muthuraj and Neela appear to have demanded Rs 50,000 for buying household articles for establishing a separate family. This cannot be construed as demand of dowry, the judge said. Moreover, the evidence on record shows that Kalpana was basically a sensitive person and the quarrel was working on her mind and had prompted her to commit suicide. Her parents started improving their allegations from time to time and approached the Human Rights Commission and advocates to build up a case of murder, against the accused. The judge found that the allegation is not found anywhere either in her statement to the Executive Magistrate or to the police. The post-mortem report also does not disclose the existence of the injury in Kalpana’s right hand, as alleged. “In such perspective of the matter, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges albeit the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act,” the judge said and allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the 2012 judgment of the lower court and ordered the acquittal of the three accused. ‘No dowry demand’ Justice Prakash said that from a conspectus of the facts obtained in the case, it is seen that there was no demand of dowry in connection with marriage

If You Like This Story, Support NYOOOZ

NYOOOZ SUPPORTER

NYOOOZ FRIEND

Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.


Stay updated with all the Chennai Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.

Related Articles