Tag: #dowry

–Report by Harshit Yadav

In the case of Raj Kumar Versus. The State, National Capital Territory Of Delhi, the petitioner/applicant, Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, has been accused of pushing his sister-in-law off the terrace of her matrimonial house, resulting in grievous injuries. The victim has alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws for dowry and was restrained from communicating with her parents and husband. The applicant denied the allegations and claimed that the victim had jumped off the terrace herself. The court has dismissed the applicant’s previous bail applications, and the present application is being heard.

FACTS:

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 512/2022 under Sections 307/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at PS Ranhola, New Delhi. The FIR was registered on June 21, 2022, after a PCR call was received at PS Ranhola, Delhi regarding a lady (complainant) falling from the roof of her matrimonial house. Upon receiving information, the SDM Punjabi Bagh reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim. The victim alleged that she had married Mr. Ram Kumar and Rs. 2.5 lakhs were paid as dowry. After her marriage, she was taunted, beaten, and threatened for dowry as well as restrained from communicating and or meeting with her parents and husband. The victim has alleged that on June 21, 2022, by reason of her request to meet her mother, the present applicant, Mr. Raj Kumar Singh (brother-in-law) along with other accused persons namely, Nempal Singh (father-in-law), Mamta (mother-in-law), & Monica (sister-in-law) dragged her to the terrace and pushed her from there. During the course of investigation, the statement of an eyewitness, Ms. Babita was recorded, she stated that the complainant herself jumped from the roof. However, during the further course of the investigation, the said eyewitness retracted her previous statement. During the investigation, Call Detail Records were obtained & analyzed as well as a supplementary statement of the complainant was also recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. After the completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The present applicant had filed two bail applications, which were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05 and learned Additional Sessions Judge-09. The present application seeks grant of regular bail.

ISSUES RAISED:

Whether the petitioner/applicant is entitled to be granted regular bail under Sections 439 and 482 of the CrPC in FIR No. 512/2022 under Sections 307/498A/34 of the IPC.

Whether the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment against the petitioner/applicant and other co-accused persons are true or false.

Whether the complainant jumped from the terrace of her matrimonial home or was pushed by the petitioner/applicant and other co-accused persons.

Whether the eyewitness, Ms. Babita, retracted from her previous statement due to any pressure or influence from the petitioner/applicant and other co-accused persons.

Whether the supplementary statement of the complainant under Section 161 of CrPC and the call records support the allegations made against the petitioner/applicant and other co-accused persons.

Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to Ms. Monica, the wife of the petitioner/applicant, is relevant to the present case.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The applicant’s counsel has contended that the allegations are false and no specific allegations have been made against the present applicant. They have argued that the complainant herself jumped off the terrace, and this has been corroborated by an eye witness. They have also pointed out that the complainant’s husband has not been accused in the case.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The prosecution, on the other hand, has argued that there is sufficient evidence to establish the involvement of the present applicant in the crime. They have presented the complainant’s statement alleging cruelty and dowry demands by the accused, corroborated by the supplementary statement of an eye witness. They have also cited the recovery of three handwritten slips thrown by the complainant, requesting help from her relatives, and the admission of the complainant in her additional statement that she communicated with her family through the accused’s phone.

JUDGEMENT:

In this case, the petitioner/applicant has sought regular bail in FIR No. 512/2022 under Sections 307/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at PS Ranhola, New Delhi. The petitioner is accused of pushing his sister-in-law from the terrace of her matrimonial home, among other charges.

The court has considered the facts of the case, including the statement of the victim, who alleges that she was taunted, beaten, and threatened for dowry, and was restrained from communicating or meeting with her parents and husband. The victim has also alleged that the present applicant, along with other accused persons, dragged her to the terrace and pushed her from there.

During the course of the investigation, an eye witness initially stated that the complainant had jumped from the roof, but later retracted her statement and stated that the complainant was hanging from the roof and fell down due to a loosening of her grip. The complainant admitted to communicating with her mother, brother, and husband through the phone of the present applicant and his wife, and stated that her relatives witnessed her being abused and misbehaved at the hands of the present applicant and his family. She further stated that the present applicant, along with the other co-accused persons, threw her from the terrace after she expressed a desire to leave her matrimonial home.

The court has also considered the fact that the present applicant’s wife, Ms. Monica, was granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge-09, Tis Hazari Courts.

Based on the above facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature and require further investigation. The court further notes that the applicant’s previous bail applications have been dismissed by the competent courts.

The court, therefore, finds no ground to grant regular bail to the present applicant at this stage. The application is dismissed

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3JMlYDP

-Report by Sanstuti Mishra

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in case of CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION, MARIANO ANTO BRUNO & ANR. Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE held that upon the appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses and other material adduced by the prosecution, Trial Court wrongly convicted the Petitioners and the High Court was also not justified in upholding the conviction of the Petitioners under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.

Facts 

This appeal is filed under Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2021 of the Madras High Court of January 31, 2022, wherein, appellants were sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment with a fine of  5,000/- each, and failure to do so would amount to simple imprisonment for a month under section 498A IPC and imprisonment of 7 years with 25,000 fine, non-adherence of which would amount to 3 months simple imprisonment u/s 306 IPC. On appeal, the High Court upheld the applicant’s conviction for violations under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. 

The marriage of Applicant No. 1 and Dr. M. Amari Victoria was ordained on September 8, 2005, and had a child in 2007. The husband was informed that his wife had collapsed in the bathroom, she was unable to resuscitate and she died on November 5, 2014. An autopsy on her corpse was performed on November 6, 2014, and her cause of death was asphyxiation due to external compression on her neck. FIR was registered by the police based on the appellant’s statements u/s 174 CrPC, which was further converted into Sections 498A and 306 IPC on PW-1’s complaint.

Petitioner No. 1 caused immeasurable emotional distress to the deceased by forcing the deceased to have another child, even though the deceased miscarried in her second pregnancy.  She was deceased, required to do all of her household chores and suffered constant abuse from her in-laws. For the same reason, the deceased was driven to suicide on November 5, 2014.

After reviewing prosecution witness testimony and defence evidence, the Trial court convicted the Appellants (husband and mother-in-law) u/s 498A and 306 IPC. The deceased’s father-in-law was acquitted by the Court.

Petitioner’s Contention 

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal filed that allegations of atrocities were first raised by the deceased’s mother who was never raised in nine years of marriage. The relations between both families were good. It cannot be claimed that the deceased committed suicide due to the applicant’s abetment. 

It was then submitted that when their statements were taken shortly after the deceased’s death, there was no evidence of animosity between the families. The summary recorded by PW-9 shows a past medical history of depression, attempted suicide, and suicidal ideation. Further that the courts also convicted the applicant based solely on her PW-1 through PW-3 testimony alleging the applicant committed continued sexual and emotional abuse.

Defendant’s Contention

PV Yogeswaran, appearing for the respondents, said evidence from PW-1 to PW-3 clearly showed that all defendants demanded a higher dowry after marriage and further were forced to drink cow urine under the name of ‘pooja’.

It was also submitted that PW-1 to her PW-3 repeatedly reported on the nature of the harassment and incidents in which victims committed suicide and left their only child behind. It was then vehemently argued that there was clear evidence of an exponential increase in abuse, harassment, and agitation by the accused following the termination of her second pregnancy in 2014.

Judgement 

The honourable Supreme court concluded the Courts ought to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide.

Accordingly, the facts and evidence Supreme court analysed facts which were ignored by both the Trial Court as well as the High court. The bench concluded that there was not a shred of evidence with respect to the offence alleged under Section 498A of the IPC meted out to the deceased by the Petitioners. There has been no marital discord between Appellant No. 1 and the deceased during their 9 years of married life. The deceased was suffering from bipolar order and also had suicidal ideas from a few days before suicide. The Trial Court as well as the High Court did not take the evidence of PW-9, the Psychiatrist into consideration while convicting the Appellants under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. The conviction of the appellants is solely based on the oral evidence of the mother and sister of the deceased, who are interested witnesses. As a result, the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2022 passed by the High Court as well as the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 26.03.2021 are unsustainable and deserve to be set aside and are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The bench opined that to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence.

Marriage- an age-old institution that is considered as a sacramental union is infested with a tradition that took the color of greed over the years and has agonized many- Dowry. 

What Is Dowry?

“Dowry” in simple terms means giving or agreeing to give any property (could be anything from gold, home appliances like fridge, etc., cash, to something as basic as utensils.) by one party to the marriage to another. This exchange could be made before, at, or even after the marriage. Sec-2 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, excludes dower or mahr from the ambit of dowry in the case of persons to whom Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

While the definition of dowry as given by The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, suggests dowry given by “one party to a marriage” (not specifying which), it is always the bride’s family who gives the dowry. This is a dominant example of the prevalent system of patriarchy. A girl child is considered a burden from her birth by her parents because they would have to give dowry in the future to make her somebody’s wife someday. Hence it is not far-fetched to say that dowry has led to offenses like female feticide, female child trafficking, etc. 

The amount of dowry depends on multiple factors (likely to be offensive) like education of the groom, education of the bride, caste-subcaste, bride’s skills, her beauty, the family status of both the parties in the society, family’s negotiation skills, and the list is inexhaustive.

Current Status 

It may come as a surprise to many, but in earlier times, dowry was given to the bride by her family as means to maintain her independence after marriage. Over the years, it developed as a means to satisfy the greed of her in-laws. Acknowledging the mounting cases of dowry harassment and death, the Indian Parliament enacted The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, declaring dowry illegal in India followed by Section 498A, 304B, Indian Penal Code-1860.

Statutory Provisions

1.  THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961

This act aims at prohibiting giving and taking of dowry. 

• Section 3, states the penalty of giving or taking of dowry or abetting of giving and taking dowry. 

Penalty- imprisonment for a term not less than 5 years and with a fine not less than 15,000/-, or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.

Proviso- For adequate and special reasons, to be recorded in the judgment, imprisonment for less than 5 years can be imposed.

{Before the 1984 amendment, the penalty under this section was- imprisonment which may extend to 6 months, OR with fine which may extend to 5000/- OR with both.}

EXCEPTIONS: – Presents, (given without any demand being made for them) at the time of marriage, to the bride or bridegroom. Conditioned on the fact that they are to be entered in a list maintained as per the rules made under this Act.

Provided such presents, when given from the bride’s side are customary and their value is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person giving.

• Section 4, states the penalty for demanding dowry. Demanding dowry-directly or indirectly, from parents/relatives/guardians of bride or bridegroom.

Penalty-  Imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to 2 years and with a fine which may extend to 10000/-

Proviso- For adequate and special reasons, to be recorded in the judgment, imprisonment for less than 6 months can be imposed.

• Section 8 makes every offence under this Act, non-cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.

{Before the 1984 amendment, the offenses under this Act were non-cognizable, bailable, and non-compoundable.}

2. CRUELTY BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVE OF HUSBAND, SECTION 498A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

In 1983, Chapter XXA was inserted that had only one section i.e., Section 498A.

Section 498A deals with all cases of cruelty towards and harassment of a woman by her husband or his relatives.  

Essential ingredients of this section are: –

• The victim was a married lady (may also be a widow)
• She has been subjected to cruelty by her husband or the relatives of her husband.
• That such cruelty consisted of either

– harassment of a woman to coerce her meeting demand of dowry, or 

– willful conduct by the husband or the relative of her husband of such a nature is likely to lead the lady to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb, or health.

• Such injury inflicted is either physical or mental.

3. DOWRY DEATH, SECTION 304B, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

“Section 304B has been inserted in the IPC by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths.”

Essential ingredients of this section are: –

• The death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances
• Such deaths must occur within a period of 7 years of marriage.
• She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relatives.
• Such cruelty should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and
• Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. 

Punishment: – Imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

Section 498A and Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not mutually exclusive. They deal with two distinct offenses. Even if cruelty defined in Section 498A will be the same for Section 304B, yet under 498A cruelty itself is punishable. But under 304B, Dowry Death is punishable that should have occurred within 7 years of marriage and no such period is mentioned in 498A.

Venugopal v. State of Karnataka (1999)- Constant demand of dowry leading to ill-treatment, harassment, and torture of the wife at the hands of the husband soon before her death, led her to take the extreme step of ending her life. The Supreme Court held the husband liable for dowry death u/s 304B, IPC for creating a situation whereby the wife committed suicide within 2 years of the marriage.

The state of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram (2009)- The death of the deceased wife took place after one and a half years of her marriage due to head injuries. Cruel treatment and harassment meted out to her immediately after her marriage till her death for bringing insufficient dowry. The Supreme Court held Section 304B to be applicable in the case. 

4. SECTION 113B OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872

To ascertain, whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman, If soon before her death, she has been subjected to cruelty or harassment related to any dowry demand by that person, the Court will presume it to be a case of dowry death.

Also “dowry death” here has the same meaning as that given in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Kailash v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) SC- In this case, it was held that the words “soon before” in Section 113B cannot be limited by fixing time limit, it is to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

The combined effect of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872- If the prosecution proves the ingredients of Section 304B, then the presumption under Section 113B will operate. This is a rebuttable presumption and the onus to rebut shifts on the accused. 

Misuse Of Dowry Law

Like there are two sides of a coin, law related to dowry has two facets too. On one hand, we advocate that even after so many years of dowry law coming to life, our system has failed to eradicate dowry. On the other hand, there are cases of capturing the soul of these laws in the wrong way. 

Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 criminalizes cruelty towards a wife and makes it cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offenses. This section authorizes police to make an immediate arrest of the accused (husband and his relatives) based solely on the victim’s testimony and no other evidence. The flawed crafting of this section provides an opportunity for wrongful incarceration by vindictive women and at the same time makes this provision less effective for the ones actually in need. 

Structuring of this section is such that almost in all cases all the accused (husband as well as his relatives) receive the punishment of life imprisonment, as a result of not taking account of factors like physical or relationship proximity to comprehend whether the accused could actually be a part of such a commission. Due to this lack of clarity, many are undergoing punishment even without having any role in the act in question.

To overcome this shortcoming, in 2014, the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. the State of Bihar, ordered the police to follow a nine-point checklist before arresting anyone on a dowry complaint to avoid misuse of this section. This too faced backlash, one of the reasons being that it jeopardized the expediency in dowry cases.

Conclusion

Dowry is one of those social evils that has been fought against for a long time now, still, it persists. A problem was recognized and laws against it were drafted. But does it really matter if we have them written on paper only but not completely in practice? The biggest hurdle is the cases being unreported. From the very beginning, we as a society have motivated this tradition to prevail by giving, taking dowry, and watching others do the same. We have breathed life into this tradition time and time again. And today, when some of us advocate against it, most of us have accepted this as a totally normal act. Need of the hour is awareness & courage to put a stop to dahej pratha, acknowledge the anomalies in the laws drafted and look for their proper execution. One needs to realize the gravity of offenses committed in the name of this tradition and that it even leads to the death of the victim. Does it not make you wonder if it is dowry death or a well-thought dowry murder? 

The article has been written by Munmun Kaur, a law student from Law Centre-I, Faculty of Law, Delhi University.

Latest Posts

• Job opportunity at EXO Edge, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
• Internship opportunity at Vishwas Advisors, Kalyan, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Internship opportunity at Kulfi Collective, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!
• Job opportunity at The Neotia University, Diamond Harbour, West Bengal, India: Apply Now !!
• Job opportunity at Morgan Stanley, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at VISA INTELLIGENCE CONSULTANCY LLP, New Delhi, Delhi, India: Apply Now!!  
• Job opportunity at Amazon Web Services (AWS), Gurugram, Haryana, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Stelcore Management Services Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Zscaler, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Irish Expert, Delhi, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at UnitedLex · Gurgaon, Haryana, India: Apply Now!
• Internship opportunity at Vineforce · Nabha, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!

---

• CLAT-Peeps! (10)
  • Current Affairs (2)
• competitions (132)
• Conferences and Seminars (201)
  • Webinar (1)
• Course and Workshops (107)
• Debates (46)
• Eassy Competitions (69)
• Fellowships & Scholarships (56)
• Guest Blogs (6)
• important (29)
• Internships and Jobs (2,317)
• interviews (8)
• moot court (180)
• Opportuintes (2,731)
  • Job Opportunity (1,191)
• opportunity (2,559)
  • Call for papers (475)
  • Quizes,fests and others (298)
  • Work Opportunity (836)
• Our Blog (1,049)
  • Administrative Law (17)
  • ADR (13)
  • Arms Act (2)
  • Case Analysis (205)
  • Company law (36)
  • Constitutional Law (143)
  • Consumer Protection Act (17)
  • Contract Law (62)
  • CPC (10)
  • Criminal Law (140)
  • Cyber Law (13)
  • Environmental Laws (30)
  • Evidence Act (20)
  • Family Law (12)
  • General (205)
  • International Humanitarian Law (8)
  • International law (23)
  • IPR (10)
  • Jurisprudence (13)
  • labor laws (7)
  • Maritime Laws (1)
  • Partnership Act (2)
  • personal law (33)
  • Taxation (10)
  • Tort (64)
  • Transfer of Property (2)
• Our Services (11)
  • career advice (2)
  • others (6)
• Top Stories (524)
• Uncategorized (720)

Archives

• November 2023 (26)
• October 2023 (1)
• September 2023 (5)
• August 2023 (2)
• July 2023 (25)
• June 2023 (23)
• May 2023 (40)
• April 2023 (136)
• March 2023 (124)
• February 2023 (138)
• January 2023 (61)
• December 2022 (39)
• November 2022 (103)
• October 2022 (178)
• September 2022 (342)
• August 2022 (240)
• July 2022 (273)
• June 2022 (196)
• May 2022 (27)
• April 2022 (99)
• March 2022 (190)
• February 2022 (196)
• January 2022 (193)
• December 2021 (152)
• November 2021 (203)
• October 2021 (189)
• September 2021 (177)
• August 2021 (192)
• July 2021 (393)
• June 2021 (293)
• May 2021 (179)
• April 2021 (61)
• March 2021 (46)
• February 2021 (56)
• January 2021 (63)
• December 2020 (86)
• November 2020 (94)
• October 2020 (146)
• September 2020 (220)
• August 2020 (173)
• July 2020 (165)
• June 2020 (119)
• May 2020 (136)
• April 2020 (7)
• February 2020 (37)
• January 2020 (3)
• November 2019 (1)