High court upholds acquittal of husband’s family in dowry harassment case

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has upheld a trial court order acquitting the family members of a man accused in a dowry harassment case, citing lack of evidence, while maintaining the conviction of the husband.

The order was passed by a bench headed by Justice V. Srishananda while hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the state government. The petition had challenged the trial court’s decision to convict the husband, Akram Pasha, while acquitting his relatives.

The High Court observed that there was no legal error in the trial court’s decision, noting that strong and credible evidence was lacking against the other accused. “There is no material to establish that the family members subjected the victim to cruelty,” the court noted.

The bench further stated that the primary role in the harassment was attributed to the husband. It clarified that merely participating in marriage negotiations or attending the wedding does not amount to an offence under dowry harassment laws.

According to the case details, the complainant, a woman from Chikkamagaluru, had married Akram Pasha on February 24, 2005, as per Muslim customs. It was alleged that a dowry of Rs 1 lakh, gold ornaments, and a wristwatch had been agreed upon at the time of marriage.

The complaint stated that Rs 50,000 was paid during the wedding, while the remaining amount led to alleged harassment by the husband and his family. The woman also alleged physical and mental cruelty, attempts to force her out of the house, and additional demands including Rs 25 lakh and a house in Belur.

Police had registered a case under IPC Sections 498A and 504, along with provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and filed a charge sheet after investigation.

The magistrate court had convicted the husband and sentenced him to six months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5,000. It also directed him to return the dowry amount. However, other family members were acquitted due to lack of evidence.

Both the trial court and the appellate court had upheld the acquittal, leading the High Court to observe that there was limited scope for interference in the findings.