SC: Order of acquittal should not be easily disturbed.

Supreme Court: An order of acquittal should not be taken lightly when seeking to recover exoneration of a man accused of abandoning his wife to death . The Madras High Court overturned the verdict of the man in March 2019 .

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that an order of acquittal should not be taken lightly when seeking to recover the exoneration of a man accused of abandoning his wife to death.Before dismissing an accusation, the apex court ruled that the appellate court must deal with every reason that weighed on the court concerned when noting the guilty verdict.The verdict of the Madras High Court in March 2019 was overturned by a bench of justices U U Lalit and S R Bhat, who had upheld the judgement of the man for alleged offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with a husband or his relative subjecting a married woman to cruelty.According to the bench, the decision under appeal has not stated why the order of acquittal cited under section 498-A of the IPC had to be annulled.

According to the Supreme Court, no such exercise was pursued by the High Court.The order was granted by the bench when considering the cross appeals brought by the original complainant and the accused challenging the high court verdict.The defendant was cleared of the charge under section 494 of the IPC, which deals with marrying once more during the lifetime of a spouse or husband, and his conviction had been restored under section 498-A of the IPC.As far as the challenge brought by the complainant at trial is concerned, the apex court also dealt with the charge that the accused was cleared under section 494 of the IPC.

We accept the petition, set aside the high court's order, and restore the appellate court's order of acquittal in respect of a violation punishable under section 498-A, the bench said.According to the prosecutors, the accused and the complainant became engaged in 1987 and then married as husband and wife, and later they exchanged rings and traded.The accused allegedly tried to force her to abort a child in 1989, but she gave birth to a child.She said she attempted to commune with the accused, but he refused to take her.

The suit was brought by the court, declaring her as the mother of the accused and prohibiting him from marrying another woman.The man, who then appealed, married the other woman, after which the complainant filed a lawsuit against him for suspected crimes, including under sections 498-A and 494 of the IPC.In the lawsuit brought by a judicial magistrate who found him guilty of the offences set out in section 494 and 498-A of the IPC, a charge sheet was drawn against the accused.The judgement made by the judicial magistrate was challenged before a session court, which dismissed the appeal in part by dismissing his conviction for the violation of IPC section 498-A.

The case was then heard by the high court.In the decision, the high court noted that the complainant had received a court order confirming that she was the wife of the accused, and that despite his second appeal, there was no suspension granted.The jury alleged that the defendant had married the other woman, and the charge had also failed to show that the accused had married her.