<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has asked the courts to be careful to identify instances of "over implication" in dowry harassment cases where innocent persons may suffer just because they have been named in a dowry case.</p><p>A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar acquitted Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode, sentenced to the period already undergone for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC after being held guilty in a case related to unnatural death of the wife of his brother-in-law on April 16, 2011.</p><p>"We find that there is no scintilla of evidence against the appellant," the bench said.</p><p>In its decision on October 21, the court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgments of 2020 and of the trial court of 2014.</p><p>It said the finding of guilt against the appellant is "absolutely perverse in view of the absolute absence of any evidence against him to connect him with the said offence in any manner".</p>.Allahabad High Court quashes man's plea challenging order in 'live-in' partner's dowry death case.<p>The appellant contended his marriage with the sister of the husband of the deceased woman was solemnised only on October 26, 2010 and the unfortunate incident occurred hardly within five and half months. He claimed he had not even had opportunity to interact with the deceased much less to harass or to show cruelty to her. </p><p>The bench also noted that the allegations were vague and no specific accusation had been raised against the appellant. </p><p>"That apart, despite our microscopic examination, we could not find any specific evidence brought out by the prosecution against the appellant herein through anyone of the witnesses. In other words, the fact discernible is that none of the prosecution witnesses had specifically deposed against the appellant of his having committed any cruelty which will attract the offence," the bench said.</p><p>The prosecution claimed the accused persons demanded Rs 5 lakhs from the family of the deceased for the purpose of purchasing residential flat from January, 2010 onwards. The incident resulting in the victim's death occurred hardly within five and half months since he became a relative of the family of the husband of the deceased.</p><p>The court also said being the husband of the second accused, Savita, who was found guilty by the courts below for the offence cannot be a ground to hold the appellant guilty under the said offence in the absence of any specific material on record.</p><p>The appellant said following his conviction and consequently imposed sentence, he was terminated from the post of Laboratory Attendant, Balbheem College, Beed.</p><p>In its judgment, the bench said it is only appropriate to be reminded of the observations of this court in the decision in 'Preeti Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand' (2010) — "it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases".</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has asked the courts to be careful to identify instances of "over implication" in dowry harassment cases where innocent persons may suffer just because they have been named in a dowry case.</p><p>A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar acquitted Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode, sentenced to the period already undergone for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC after being held guilty in a case related to unnatural death of the wife of his brother-in-law on April 16, 2011.</p><p>"We find that there is no scintilla of evidence against the appellant," the bench said.</p><p>In its decision on October 21, the court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgments of 2020 and of the trial court of 2014.</p><p>It said the finding of guilt against the appellant is "absolutely perverse in view of the absolute absence of any evidence against him to connect him with the said offence in any manner".</p>.Allahabad High Court quashes man's plea challenging order in 'live-in' partner's dowry death case.<p>The appellant contended his marriage with the sister of the husband of the deceased woman was solemnised only on October 26, 2010 and the unfortunate incident occurred hardly within five and half months. He claimed he had not even had opportunity to interact with the deceased much less to harass or to show cruelty to her. </p><p>The bench also noted that the allegations were vague and no specific accusation had been raised against the appellant. </p><p>"That apart, despite our microscopic examination, we could not find any specific evidence brought out by the prosecution against the appellant herein through anyone of the witnesses. In other words, the fact discernible is that none of the prosecution witnesses had specifically deposed against the appellant of his having committed any cruelty which will attract the offence," the bench said.</p><p>The prosecution claimed the accused persons demanded Rs 5 lakhs from the family of the deceased for the purpose of purchasing residential flat from January, 2010 onwards. The incident resulting in the victim's death occurred hardly within five and half months since he became a relative of the family of the husband of the deceased.</p><p>The court also said being the husband of the second accused, Savita, who was found guilty by the courts below for the offence cannot be a ground to hold the appellant guilty under the said offence in the absence of any specific material on record.</p><p>The appellant said following his conviction and consequently imposed sentence, he was terminated from the post of Laboratory Attendant, Balbheem College, Beed.</p><p>In its judgment, the bench said it is only appropriate to be reminded of the observations of this court in the decision in 'Preeti Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand' (2010) — "it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases".</p>
