CHANDIGARH: Backtracking on dowry allegations in court proved costly for a woman as she got entangled in her own web of lies, following which, a show-cause notice was served to her for giving false evidence.
According to information, the Sector-25 based woman had levelled dowry charges against her 27-year-old husband, a resident of Sector 51, in May 2007.
In her police complaint, the woman alleged that soon after she got married, her husband started misbehaving and using derogatory language with her for bringing insufficient dowry.
She also alleged that she was thrashed and locked up in rooms on several occasions.
Subsequently, a case under sections 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) and 498-A (husband or relative of a husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the IPC was registered against her husband on July 5, 2007.
However, the case took a new turn when during the court hearing on Monday, the complainant outright denied that she was harassed or maltreated by her husband or her in-laws.
The woman went on to state that a ‘misunderstanding’ had cropped up between the couple, due to which her relations turned sour with the in-laws, resulting in the two getting divorced.
Much to the surprise of the jury, the woman’s parents also supported her statement and denied that she was never maltreated or harassed by her husband and his family.
Shocked at the turn of events, the prosecution declared the complainant hostile, while the judicial magistrate questioned her why she shouldn’t be punished for giving false evidence in the court?
The magistrate in his judgment stated, “The complainant deliberately suppressed the truth and made a false statement knowing it could be used in the court proceedings. This clearly amounts to perjury.”
He further said, “The complainant should be tried for giving false evidence in legal proceedings. A show-cause notice must be served to her under Section 344 of the CrPC, wherein she must explain why she should not be punished. Separate proceedings must be also initiated against her.”
Meanwhile, the court acquitted the woman’s husband by giving him the benefit of doubt.