Dowry Harassment and Suicide Case: Supreme Court Acquits Father-in-Law Due to Lack of Evidence

On October 2, 2013, Maheshwari committed suicide by jumping from the Jamalpur Bridge into the Sabarmati River. The case, which unfolded in the courts over several years, revolved around allegations of dowry harassment and domestic violence. The tragic event led to an FIR being registered under Sections 498A, 306, 323, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The FIR was lodged by Maheshwari’s father, who alleged that his daughter faced continuous harassment from her husband, Suhag Kantibhai Parmar, and his family members for not fulfilling their dowry demands. The father further claimed that Suhag had an illicit relationship with another woman and that the father-in-law, Kantilal Laxman Parmar, had physically assaulted Maheshwari. Allegations were also made against other in-laws, including Pratik @ Pintoo Kantibhai Parmar (brother-in-law), Bhavnaben Kantibhai Parmar (sister-in-law), and Manoramaben Kantibhai Parmar (mother-in-law), accusing them of subjecting Maheshwari to mental and physical cruelty.

Trial and Conviction

After the completion of the investigation, charges were framed against all the accused. The trial court found them guilty under Sections 498A and 114 IPC. Additionally, Suhag Kantibhai Parmar was convicted under Section 306 IPC for abetting suicide and also under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

• Suhag Kantibhai Parmar was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 IPC and another five years for violations under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
• The appellant, Kantilal Laxman Parmar, and Pratik @ Pintoo Kantibhai Parmar were sentenced to three years of imprisonment under Sections 498A and 114 IPC, along with six months under Section 323 IPC.
• Bhavnaben Kantibhai Parmar and Manoramaben Kantibhai Parmar were sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A IPC.

High Court Appeal and Partial Acquittals

The accused challenged the trial court’s verdict in the High Court. Upon review, the High Court acquitted Pratik @ Pintoo Kantibhai Parmar, Bhavnaben Kantibhai Parmar, and Manoramaben Kantibhai Parmar but upheld the convictions of Suhag Kantibhai Parmar and Kantilal Laxman Parmar.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Appellant’s Argument: The appellant, Kantilal Laxman Parmar, contended that the evidence against him was insufficient. His counsel, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, argued that the trial court and the High Court erroneously relied on the testimony of Maheshwari’s father (PW-1), who claimed that the deceased had told him about the physical assault. However, PW-4, Maheshwari’s mother, did not corroborate this claim, as she did not testify about any physical violence committed by the appellant.

Respondent’s Argument: Representing the State, Ms. Aastha Mehta argued that Maheshwari was subjected to severe harassment and that she ultimately took her own life due to unbearable torture. The prosecution highlighted that she was pregnant at the time of her death, which made her situation even more tragic. The State maintained that the testimony of PW-1 was sufficient to convict the appellant.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the sole basis for convicting Kantilal Laxman Parmar was PW-1’s testimony that his daughter had informed him about being assaulted twice by the appellant. However, this allegation was not corroborated by PW-4, the deceased’s mother.

Key observations from the judgment:

• The appellant’s conviction was based on uncorroborated oral testimony.
• The High Court had already acquitted other family members facing similar allegations.
• The lack of supporting evidence meant that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court concluded:

“Reliance cannot be placed on the sole testimony of PW-1, on the basis of which the Appellant was convicted under Sections 498A, 114, and 323 as there is no corroboration by PW-4 who is alleged to have given the information to him.”

Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Kantilal Laxman Parmar, of all charges and directed his immediate release unless he was required in any other case.

Petitioner Name: Kantilal Laxman Parmar.
Respondent Name: The State of Gujarat.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 04-10-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kantilal Laxman Parm vs The State of Gujarat Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-10-2019.pdf