Dowry death case: Inconsistencies in evidence lead to acquittal in Hyderabad

Charminar: After seven years of court trial, a local court acquitted three individuals accused of a 2018 dowry death case in the limits of Hyderabad commissionerate on Monday. The case involved housewife Nagalakshmi, found hanging in her marital home after four years of marriage. The prosecution argued she faced cruelty and harassment for dowry, but the court acquitted the husband and mother-in-law due to lack of evidence.

The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of Nagalakshmi’s parents and relatives, who claimed she was pressured for additional dowry. The court noted her death by hanging within seven years of marriage at her in-laws’ house on April 20,2018. Witness testimonies (family and neighbours) and an official inquest (by the Deputy Tahasildar) corroborate the suicide. A medical examination and post-mortem report establish hanging as the cause of death.

However, as the trial unfolded, the prosecution’s case began to unravel. The court found significant inconsistencies in the key witnesses’ testimonies, including Nagalakshmi’s parents. Her father admitted that the accused husband had provided financial support of Rs.30,000 to his son to establish a tiffin center and to purchase a motorbike. The court noted, “If the accused demanding Nagalakshmi for any additional dowry is true, normally there wouldn’t be financial assistance from the husband to her family.”

Witness statements say Nagalakshmi complained about ill-treatment around Rakhi festival and committed suicide within 15 days. However, evidence from her parents states the death date is April 20,2018. The 2018 Rakhi festival was on August 26, after the death date. The court found inconsistencies in their statements, particularly regarding the timeline of alleged harassment.

Prosecution fails to prove cruelty in dowry death case

The investigation failed to corroborate the alleged demands for additional dowry. The court observed that, “Overall scrutiny of the evidence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the crucial ingredient of cruelty or harassment by direct and cogent evidence, thereby disentitling itself to the benefit of the statutory presumption under Sec. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act.”

The court said, “The prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused. As a result, they were found not guilty for the offence punishable and they were acquitted.”