Tag: #DowryProhibitionAct

-Report by Ishika Sehgal

A trial court found Kiran Kumar guilty in May 2022 after finding that he had subjected Vismaya to harassment and abuse connected to the dowry during the duration of their marriage. On Wednesday, the Kerala High Court issued a notice to the State government, the respondents in the appeal filed by Kiran Kumar challenging his conviction.

Last year, a 22-year-old Ayurveda medical student named Vismaya was found dead in her marital house under unexplained circumstances, apparently by suicide, after she had complained of dowry harassment. Her death shocked the entire state. Her spouse was therefore detained a day after the incident was made public because the death occurred less than a year after their wedding. Only a few days before she passed away, Vismaya shared images of bruises and wounds to her family members via WhatsApp, claiming that her husband was harassing her for dowry. After she was discovered dead, her family published screenshots of the WhatsApp conversation and voice messages she had sent. She had allegedly been physically abused by Kumar and his family since they weren’t happy with the “gifts” that had been presented to them for their wedding. Although the initial reports suggested suicide, it was eventually looked into as a possible homicide.

A trial court found Kiran Kumar guilty on all charges in May 2022, stating in its 441-page decision that he had harassed and abused Vismaya throughout the duration of their marriage in relation to the dowry. Sujith KN, an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Kollam, applied the following charges 304B, 306, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code,1860. And sections 2 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.

It was submitted that there is no proof that the appellant in any way demanded or accepted dowry. He claims that he received the car as a gift, not as a dowry. The conversations used by the prosecution to show that he claimed dowry are just “references to his ideas” of the presents. The appellant consequently claimed that the prosecution had not presented any proof of the illegal demand. He claimed that disputes of a different kind, regardless of how hasty or accidental they may be, are not covered by Section 498A. In order to establish a presumption under Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution was required to demonstrate that the deceased had been exposed to cruelty or harassment for dowry not long before the incident which they have failed to do.  Inadmissible utterances were accepted as dying declarations, he continued, and the contents of recorded phone calls and chats were incorrectly considered acceptable and proof of facts. The appellant has claimed that, in addition to a biased inquiry, he was also the target of brutal vilification and a media trial that the investigation agency used against him in various ways. Additionally, it has been claimed that the punishment he received was harsh and that he was never given the benefit of the doubt or even the presumption of innocence.

Justice Kauser Edappagath admitted the appeal and issued notice via the public prosecutor. The subject will be discussed a month from now.

-Report by Ishika Sehgal

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a family accused of demanding dowry and attempting to murder the daughter-in-law, who is the complainant. The family was charged under sections 307 and 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal code,1860 and sections 2 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Justice Subba Reddy Satti said that only because the husband (petitioner no. 1) and wife (complainant) had disagreements, the entire family had been brought into the conspiracy.

All of the petitioner’s relatives were involved in the family issues as a result, and they pleaded for anticipatory bail as a result. The bail application was rejected by the Special Assistant Public Prosecutor. He said that the inquiry was ongoing and that section 307 of the IPC applied to the petitioners’ attempted murder of the complainant, disqualifying them from receiving pre-arrest bail.

COMPLAINANT’S CONTENTION:

On May 31, 2016, the petitioner and the complainant were legally wed. The complainant’s parents provided 20 tulas of gold as well as Rs. 5,00,00 in cash as dowry at the time of the marriage. The complainant further claims that right from the day of her marriage, the petitioner, his parents, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law began pressuring her for more dowry. The complainant claimed that the petitioners beat her and then attempted to strangle her with a scarf when she fell. She spoke with her uncle about the incident and in March 2022 she filed a report.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:

The petitioners argued that they have been wrongly accused of the aforementioned Crime. According to the allegations in the complaint, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and Sections 498-A R/w.34 of the IPC may only be used against the petitioners and not Section 307 of the IPC. The complainant, according to the learned counsel, did not have any medical examinations, and as a result, no wound certificate has been produced that documents her injuries.

DECISION

The Court determines that it is appropriate to grant the petitioners pre-arrest bail in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the fact that all of the petitioner’s family members are becoming involved in the dispute which is between the petitioner and the complainant. Thus, the criminal petition was approved. The court further stated that the petitioners/accused shall be released on bail under the condition that each of them furnishes a self-bond for Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties and they will also cooperate with the police.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

On 28th May, the Supreme Court of India maintained the Trial Court and the High Court’s order and dismissed the appeal of the appellants in the impugned judgment of 28th May 2021. A bench of CJI NV Ramana and Justice Aniruddha Bose found the appellant guilty under Section 304 B but stated that Section 306 could not be proved.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• Satbir Singh, the deceased, and appellant no.1 got married on 1st July 1994.
• On 31st July 1995, Satbir was found dead after sustaining burn injuries.
• The prosecution claims that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of bringing less dowry by both the appellants.
• On 11th December 1997, the appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under offence punishable under Section 304B and 306, IPC.
• On June 11th, 2008, the High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.

Contentions of the Appellants

The legal counsel of the appellants approached the Supreme Court and submitted that the possibility of accidental fire has not been ruled out in the case. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was a demand for dowry. The protection has failed to prove that the demand for dowry if there was one, was made before the death of the deceased victim.

Contentions of the Respondents

The legal counsel of the state submitted that there was no additional material that the appellants showed which would merit the interference of the Supreme Court in the concurrent findings of the courts below. Emphasized upon the fact that the death of the deceased occurred within almost a year of marriage. Witnesses have consistently stated specific instances of the demand for dowry.

The Decision of The Supreme Court

The two issues at hand which required the perusal of the Supreme Court were:

• If the courts below were correct in convicting the appellants on the charge of Section 304B, IPC?
• If the courts below were correct in convicting the appellants on the charge of Section 306, IPC?

The court stated that since the death of the victim was due to burn injuries and was within 7 years of marriage, it satisfies the first two ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC. The aforementioned witnesses were also found consistent and reliable and on that basis, it was held that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death.
A perusal of the provisions under Section 306 indicates that presumptions shall be attracted only if the fact of suicide has been established. The prosecution must also prove that the accused has played an active role in the commission of suicide. This being said, the court further stated that there was insufficient evidence to prove the factum of suicide beyond doubt.

The Supreme Court of India held the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC but set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 306, IPC.

Relevant Sections

• Section 304B, Indian Penal Code.
• Section 306, Indian Penal Code.
• Section 113A, Evidence Act.
• Section 113B, Evidence Act.
• Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986.