NEW DELHI: “Mere casual taunts or ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life do not constitute ‘cruelty’,” a court has observed while acquitting a man accused of subjecting his wife to dowry-related cruelty and abetting her suicide.The prosecution failed to establish a specific or proximate link between the alleged harassment and the woman’s death, additional sessions judge Anuj Agrawal said.Key witnesses, including her mother and brother, did not support the prosecution’s allegations and attributed her death to depression, the judge noted while acquitting Anil Kumar of charges of dowry death and cruelty in connection with the death of his wife, Anjali, at their matrimonial home in June 2021.The couple had got married in 2018.The prosecution alleged that Anjali was subjected to persistent harassment by Kumar and his family over insufficient dowry.It was alleged a quarrel took place between them after Anjali returned from her brother’s wedding, which Kumar didn’t attend. Later that night, he informed her family that she had died by suicide.The case, however, suffered a “dent”, as per the court, when Anjali’s mother, the complainant, and one of her brothers turned hostile.They said Anjali was never harassed for dowry and was depressed following the death of her newborn son about a year earlier.Another brother and a sister-in-law still alleged that Anjali was subjected to dowry-related taunts, including her father-in-law remarking that “even the poorest person can give this much dowry”.However, during cross-examination, both said they were unaware of any specific demand for money or articles.The court concluded the allegations to be “general and omnibus in nature”, and held that the prosecution had failed to establish any specific act of cruelty linked to dowry demands, particularly in the period immediately preceding Anjali’s death.The judge opined, “Mere casual taunts or ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life do not constitute ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 498A IPC, unless it is shown that such conduct was of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury.”“Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof,” the court said, adding that the prosecution must travel “the entire distance from may have to must have”.
