Failure To Provide Medical Treatment To The Woman Doesn’t Amount To Cruelty - Mumbai Sessions Court

Recently, a Mumbai sessions court cleared a man and four of his family members of accusations of domestic violence, dowry death, and abetment of his wife's suicide, stating that their failure to provide medical care to the woman did not amount to cruelty. Additionally, the court found that the typical strains that arise within a family did not qualify as cruelty towards the deceased. The ruling was made by Additional Sessions Judge SM Takalikar.

In 2012, the maternal uncle of the deceased lodged a complaint against the accused, alleging that they subjected his niece to assault and harassment after she gave birth and denied her medical care despite her weakened condition, ultimately leading to her decision to take her own life in 2011.

Consequently, the accused were charged under Sections 498A, 306, 406, 304B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cruelty to women by the husband or his family members, abetment of suicide, criminal breach of trust, and dowry death, among other charges. During the trial, the prosecution presented seven witnesses to support their case against the accused.

During the hearing, Assistant Public Prosecutor Ambekar, representing the State of Maharashtra, argued that the death of the deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage and therefore fell under the purview of Section 113A of the Evidence Act. According to this section, if a married woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and evidence exists of cruelty inflicted upon her by her husband or his relatives, a court may infer that her suicide was abetted by the husband or his relatives based on all the circumstances of the case.

The prosecutor maintained that the accused had been cruel to the deceased, demanded money from her, abetted her suicide, and misappropriated the gold and silver ornaments presented to her during her wedding, citing the evidence presented in court. Therefore, he called for the accused to be found guilty.

Advocate Nilesh Mishra, appearing for the defendant, presented his argument by highlighting that there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged incidents and that the prosecution's evidence was solely based on hearsay. Furthermore, he highlighted the inconsistencies in the evidence of some prosecution witnesses and argued that there was no concrete evidence to support the allegation that the accused was involved in an extramarital affair. Based on these points, he requested the court to consider the lack of reliable evidence and grant the accused the benefit of the doubt.

In its verdict, the court concluded that the testimonies of the witnesses lacked clarity and were insufficient to establish the accused's involvement in the alleged act of cruelty. Consequently, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused abetted the woman's suicide and committed a dowry death.