Setting aside a lower court judgment, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man sentenced to life imprisonment for killing his wife over dowry demand, saying the prosecution failed to establish charges against him and produce evidence to prove his presence in the house where the woman was found dead.A division bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Prashant Mishra stated in its order dated May 12 that if on the same set of evidence, the two other accused — the father-in-law and mother-in-law — were acquitted of the charges levelled against them, it was bad to convict the husband on account of the same evidence.The bench pulled up the prosecution for failing to establish charges against the husband and also produce any evidence about the presence of the husband in his house where the wife was found dead.The husband, Mahipal, who was sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 30,000 by Sessions Judge Court, Rampur on April 7, 2023, had filed an appeal in the high court seeking relief.The case pertained to the death of Mahipal’s wife Mamta on August 14, 2017 at her in-laws’ house in Milak police station area of Rampur district. Mamta’s uncle had lodged the FIR stating she was married to Mahipal in 2014 and was allegedly murdered for not meeting the dowry demand by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, Mahipal’s brother, the latter’s wife and his sister. The complainant also alleged that all the named accused had fled leaving Mamta’s body in the house.The autopsy report stated the death was caused by asphyxia due to throttling. The police filed a charge sheet against Mahipal and his parents on charges of dowry death, murder by husband and relatives and cruelty to the victim. The other accused were exonerated from the charges and the trial began after the charges were framed against the three accused in January 2018.The court has mentioned statements of all the seven witnesses recorded before the trial court, including those of prosecution and the defense.Story continues below this adThe Investigating Officer (IO) stated in his cross-examination that he had not found any evidence of any broken bangles. There was no apparent injury on the body, there was a ligature mark on the neck, and he had no idea how the death had taken place, the IO stated in his cross-examination.The doctor, who had conducted the post mortem along with other doctors in the panel, stated that the hyoid bone was intact and in his opinion it could have been caused by throttling. But, he further said that there were no thumb impressions on the throat which are usually found at the time of throttling and, therefore, the death could have happened because of hanging and that it also could be a case of suicide.In the cross-examination, the doctor stated that there was no sign of any rope being used for hanging, but if throttling by hand was done then there would have been some signs of nails on the neck. The doctor stated that hyoid bone normally gets broken in a case of throttling but it was not essential at all times.After hearing the submissions, the bench observed that it is noteworthy to mention that one of the most important witnesses of cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry was the elder sister of the victim who is married in the same village and in the neighborhood where Mamta was married. She has not been produced by the prosecution. She would have been the best witness regarding the allegations levelled by the in-laws of Mamta as both were sisters and were married in the same village. Had the sister been examined by the prosecution, she would have been a much better witness than those produced by the prosecution, the court observed.Story continues below this adMoreover, the court said that the defence witnesses have stated that Mamta died due to hanging. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, has also stated in his cross-examination that the injuries caused on the body of the deceased, may be due to hanging.“We are of the view that the prosecution had failed in its duty and thus the only irresistible conclusion is that when the prosecution itself had failed to discharge its duty of bringing in evidence to prove that the husband i.e. the appellant was in the house at the relevant point of time and had committed the murder, then the accused — appellant is entitled for acquittal,” the court stated in its order.Therefore, the court ordered that the judgment and order dated April 7, 2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur, be set aside.The court also stated that the appellant is honourably acquitted of all the charges under which he was tried and ordered his release.