NAGPUR : Over a decade-and-a-half after a man from Umrer was convicted for abetting his wife’s suicide over dowry, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court acquitted him of all charges while passing strictures on the investigating officer for suppressing facts and misleading the court.

“The investigating officer, it can be said, had not only suppressed a material fact from the court of justice, but also successfully misled the court of law. Such behaviour of the investigating officer is reprehensible and calls for appropriate inquiry and if necessary departmental action against him,” a single-judge bench of justice Sunil Shukre observed.

He added that superior officers of the investigating officer would hopefully inquire into the matter and take action against the officer found responsible as is permissible under the law.

Petitioner Gomaji used to allegedly harass his wife Rupmati for dowry and her failure to put her educational qualifications to use. She often used to reveal ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband, like marking her with burning cigarettes. After the couple transferred to Butibori , Rupmati gave birth to a baby boy but there was no end to the harassment.

On July 15, 1998, she set herself afire with the child and died of 100% burn injuries. The incident was reported by the landlord of the house where the family lived. After her brother’s complaint, Bela police station lodged an FIR and arrested Gomaji.

The investigation officer produced a letter written by the wife on June 22, 1990, but it was alleged that it was planted to boost the prosecution’s case against Gomaji. On the basis of this letter, Nagpur sessions court had convicted him on August 31, 2001, for an offence of cruelty and sentenced him to two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000. The petitioner challenged this verdict in the high court through counsel Rajendra Daga.

Citing handwriting experts, he contended that the letter was not written by the wife and didn't disclose anything that could have led to suicide.

“Such conduct of the investigating officer has vitiated the seizure of this letter and now it has to be said that possibility of its planting, in order to support the prosecution case, has not been ruled out. If this is the case, no reliance whatsoever on the contents of the letter can be placed, irrespective of the fact that handwriting or its seizure has not been seriously disputed by the appellant,” the judge observed before allowing the plea.

(With inputs from Shivani Arora, names changed to protect identities)

