Kochi Court Acquits Man and Parents in Dowry Assault Case, Criticises CBI

Kochi: A court here has acquitted three individuals in a dowry assault case, sharply criticising the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for failing to produce sufficient evidence to support the charges.
The special CBI court acquitted Sreekant Jayachandra Menon of Kodungallur, along with his father Jayachandran T.K. and mother Beena Jayachandran. Sreekant and his family had been charged under various provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code following an investigation by the CBI.
According to the prosecution, Sreekant married Sruthy Suresh in 2018, and the couple later moved to Canada. Sruthy alleged that she was subjected to brutal assaults there and was forced to consume drugs. She also claimed that the accused had compelled her to terminate her pregnancy and that Sreekant had allegedly put toilet-cleaning granules into her mouth, causing burn injuries to her internal organs. After returning to India, she alleged that the accused abandoned her.
The case was initially registered by Chottanikkara police in December 2020 and was later handed over to the CBI in 2022 following directions from the Kerala High Court.
Delivering the verdict, CBI Judge N. Seshadrinathan began with the remark: “Burn the Habit – Not Life.” While acquitting the accused, the court observed that there was no evidence to support the claim that Sreekant had forcibly administered any granules as alleged. It found no proof of physical or mental torture related to dowry or any conduct intended to drive the woman to take her own life.
After examining medical records from Canada, the court noted that Sruthy had consumed the granules herself while under the influence of cannabis, which resulted in the burn injuries. The court also pointed out that the CBI failed to provide any evidence showing that Sreekant's parents had harassed Sruthy while she stayed at the matrimonial home in India.
“The CBI has miserably failed to prove its case,” the court said, adding that there was no evidence to establish the giving or taking of property as part of the marriage under the Dowry Prohibition Act.