HC order reins in dowry case accused

Amarnath was fighting a lone battle for his daughter, who was allegedly killed by in-laws after he failed to fulfill their dowry demands, reports Naziya Alvi.

Amarnath was fighting a lone battle for his daughter, who was allegedly killed by in-laws after he failed to fulfill their dowry demands.

HT Image

After a four-year long legal battle, Amarnath has found hope in Delhi High court verdict issuing warrants against the groom and his family against the revision petition. A subordinate court had discharged the accused persons two years ago. On January 12 this year, Justice M. C. Garg issued bailable warrants against the accused Mohan Kumar, his parents and two sisters. The family had allegedly been evading the court proceedings for past many dates.

Victim Sushma Devi (29) died at her in-laws’ home five years after her marriage to Mohan Kumar. Within 16 months of the marriage, Sushma had lodged a dowry harassment complaint against them, which was later taken back.

A city court however, on February 26, 2007, had discharged the accused and his family of the charges of causing the death of Sushma Devi. The basis of the verdict was a viscera report that said that Sushma died of anemia. Amarnath, however, insists that the viscera report submitted before the court is not that of his daughter. “My daughter’s blood group is AB whereas the report said it was A.” He also claimed that a case of dowry harassment was filed by his family much before Sushma died. HT had reported the case in detail then.

As per the prosecution’s story, Sushma married Mohan on January 16, 2001. Just two days after her marriage her in-laws allegedly harassed her for not bringing enough dowry. They reportedly sent her back to her maternal home and asked her to bring Rs 2 lakhs and a motorcycle for Mohan.

Later Sushma’s father Amarnath filed a compliant at the Tilak Nagar police station. On the police’s insistence, Mohan took Sushma back but but her harassment did not stop. Her family again filed a police complaint under section 498-A in July 2002, which was later taken back.

Following this her in-laws changed their address without intimating Sushma’s family. Two years later her family finally met Sushma, dead, at a hospital.