The High Court has observed that demanding money from a wife for business purposes cannot be considered dowry. The higher court acquitted an accused named Md. Russell Uddin by quashing the two-year rigorous imprisonment handed down by the lower court in a case filed on charges of dowry demand and torture. At the same time, the court termed the case fabricated and baseless.
The full verdict from the single High Court bench of Justice Md. Salim was released on Sunday (October 11).
According to the case records, Md. Russell Uddin married Ismat Ara Begum on February 23, 2016, under Muslim law. It was alleged that on the evening of August 4, 2019, Russell demanded one lakh Taka from his wife for business purposes at a rented house in the Baitush Sharaf Mosque Road area of Cox’s Bazar. The wife also alleged that she was beaten with a wooden stick when she expressed inability to provide the money.
In the case filed regarding this incident, the Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal-1 of Cox’s Bazar sentenced Russell Uddin to two years of rigorous imprisonment and fined him BDT 20,000 on November 15, 2023. He appealed against that verdict in the High Court.
Reviewing the evidence and case records during the appeal hearing, the High Court stated that, according to Section 2(j) of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000, if money or property is demanded by the groom or his party as a condition or consideration for marriage, it shall be considered dowry.
The court observed that from the statements of the plaintiff and other witnesses, it is known that the accused had demanded money for his business needs. Therefore, there is no scope to consider this demand for money as dowry according to the legal definition. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the charge of dowry demand.
The High Court also found inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the charge of physical torture. While the plaintiff stated in her testimony that she sustained injuries to her right shoulder and back from a stick attack, the medical certificate from the doctor and hospital mentioned the left shoulder as the injury location. The court noted in its observation that this discrepancy between oral testimony and the medical certificate cast doubt on the torture allegation.
Based on these observations, the High Court annulled the lower court’s verdict and sentence, and acquitted Russell Uddin.