Delhi court says lack of CCTV, medical evidence no ground to discharge man in cruelty case

A Delhi court has rejected a plea by Sunil Sharma to discharge him from facing charges of cruelty and dowry harassment against his wife, ruling that the absence of CCTV footage or medical evidence does not justify dismissing the case. The court emphasized that domestic violence cases often occur behind closed doors, making eyewitness accounts or video recordings scarce. The decision came in response to a revision petition filed by Sharma, who challenged an order from the trial court that directed the framing of charges against him under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh issued the ruling on August 13, stating that the veracity of the complainant’s statements should not be tested against medical evidence or other forms of corroboration at the initial stage of charge framing. According to the court, the key consideration at this stage is whether the available information presents a prima facie case. It clarified that the truthfulness of the victim’s claims is not to be scrutinized until later stages of the legal process. This approach aligns with broader judicial guidelines that prioritize the protection of victims in sensitive matters. Sunil Sharma's wife had alleged that shortly after their marriage in December 2015, she faced repeated physical abuse and dowry-related harassment by her husband and his family. She specifically mentioned incidents of beating occurring in December 2016 and September 2016, along with dowry-related harassment in September 2017. She further claimed that her husband and his family attempted to set her on fire in March 2018. An FIR was lodged under sections related to cruelty, criminal breach of trust, and dowry harassment. Sharma contested these charges, arguing that the allegations were vague and lacked supporting evidence such as medical reports, eyewitness testimony, or CCTV footage. He also suggested that the case was a reaction to ongoing divorce proceedings. The court dismissed these arguments, noting that domestic violence offenses typically take place within private spaces, which limits the availability of witnesses and surveillance. It stated that there is no necessity for CCTV footage to validate the victim’s account. Furthermore, the judge expressed confusion over the logic of discharging the accused from multiple charges based on the lack of evidence for one offense. The court acknowledged that the complainant had provided detailed allegations, including specific dates and nature of incidents. It also highlighted that the six-year gap between the alleged incidents and the registration of the FIR would need to be addressed during the trial. The impact of this delay would be evaluated at that stage. Ultimately, the court found no legal flaw or procedural error in the trial court’s order and upheld its decision. The revision petition was thus dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the absence of certain types of evidence does not automatically lead to the dismissal of a case involving domestic violence.