The Supreme Court found that there was no credible evidence to connect the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased with her unnatural death. As such, the Court concluded that it would be unjustified to call on them to face trial as additional accused.
However, the Court noted that the father-in-law has been accused of asking for a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs when the deceased got married to his son. Further, since the father-in-law lived under the same roof as the other accused and the deceased, it was likely that he was privy to the alleged cruelty and torture meted out to the deceased. As such, the Supreme Court held that the High Court order was justified in so far as it allowed he summoning of the father-in-law.
The Supreme Court proceeded to partly allow the appeal on these terms.
“Viewed from this angle, it appears that the 1st appellant [father-in-law] might have to sink or swim with his son and wife ... We are of the considered view that while summoning of Appellant No. 1 [father-in-law] sustains, but that of Appellant No. 2 [brother-in-law] and 3 [sister-in-law] will be far fetched and they cannot be subjected to trial on the basis of mere strong suspicion,” judgment
stated.
Source: Barandbench
