No CCTV or eyewitness needed in dowry cruelty case, Delhi court says

A Delhi court has refused to discharge a man facing prosecution for allegedly subjecting his wife to dowry harassment and cruelty, saying that such offences are often committed within the four walls of a house and may not have eyewitnesses or CCTV camera footage.

Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh was hearing a revision petition filed by Sunil Sharma challenging an order directing framing of charges against him under the law relating to cruelty by husband or his relatives and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In the order dated August 13, the court said, “As regards the contention that there is no medical evidence to support the claim of the complainant that she was beaten by her husband, I find that at the stage of framing of charges, the veracity of the statement of the complainant is not to be tested for corroboration with medical evidence or any other evidence.”

The court said that at the stage of framing charges, it was only required to see whether the material on record disclosed a prima facie case and the veracity of the complainant’s allegations was not to be tested against medical or other corroborative evidence.

Sharma’s wife had alleged that soon after their marriage in December 2015, she was harassed by him and his family members.

She alleged that she was beaten on several occasions and subjected to dowry-related harassment.

An FIR was registered under provisions relating to cruelty, criminal breach of trust and dowry harassment.

Challenging the charges, Sharma argued that the allegations were vague and there was no medical evidence, eyewitness or CCTV camera footage to support them.

He also claimed that the case was a counterblast to divorce proceedings.

Rejecting the argument about lack of eyewitnesses and CCTV footage, the court said offences under the cruelty provision are committed “within the four walls of a house” and, therefore, eyewitnesses are often unavailable.

It also held that there was no requirement of CCTV camera footage to corroborate a victim’s statement.

“I fail to understand on what basis can it even be argued that if the accused has been discharged for one offence, he is entitled to be discharged for another offence also. As regards due care, I find that the order of the learned trial court is a speaking order and all the relevant material had been considered,” the judge said.

The judge noted that the complaint contained specific allegations and dates, including alleged beatings in December 2016 and September 2016, dowry-related harassment in September 2017 and an allegation that the husband and his family tried to burn her in March 2018.

The court also said the six-year delay in the registration of the FIR would have to be explained by the complainant during the trial and its effect could be assessed only thereafter.

It subsequently dismissed Sharma’s revision petition, finding no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s order.