No conviction on basis of surmises in dowry case: SC

New Delhi, June 22 (UNI) The Supreme Court has ruled that conviction cannot be recorded merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures while giving a clean chit to a husband in harassment for dowry case whose wife committed suicide by setting herself afire within 10 days of giving birth to a son.

A bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and D K Jain set aside the judgment of Madhya Pradesh high court sentencing the appellant husband Hazarilal to three years' imprisonment for harassing his deceased wife Dashoda Bai for dowry.

The deceased had committed suicide by setting herself afire on August 28,1989 in her matrimonial home. She was blessed with a son just ten days before committing suicide.

The husband and his mother Sumatrani were sentenced to ten years imprisonment for offence of dowry death ( section 304-B) and to three years' jail for offence under section 498-A IPC (harassment for dowry) by Additional Sessions judge, Sagar.

The High Court acquitted both husband and mother-in-law of the deceased of the charges of dowry death but maintained the sentence of the husband in relation to the offence of harassment for dowry.

Strangely, the High Court noted that there was no evidence against the accused persons for demanding dowry but noted that after giving birth to a child the deceased could not have entertained the idea of committing suicide unless she was being harassed by the appellant.

The apex court while allowing the appeal of Hazarilal in its judgment dated June 20 held, "There being no other material to show as to how the deceased being harassed or subjected to cruelty, the conclusion of the High Court that because the deceased committed suicide there must be some harassment and cruelty is unsupportable and indefensible. There was no material to substantiate this conclusion. Merely on surmises and conjectures the conviction could not have recorded. There is a vast difference between "could have been", "must have been", and "has been". In the absence of any material , the case falls to the first category. In such a case convction is impermissible.

That being so the conviction as recorded by the High Court can not be maintained and the order of the High Court is unsustainable and indefensible." UNI