The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a husband under Section 304B of dowry death. The deceased woman, Kanta Devi, was married to the accused in 1990. After two months of marriage, the deceased's mother-in-law demanded a motorcycle from her father, which he could not provide. The husband and mother-in-law then started harassing the deceased for more dowry. Five days before an event, the husband took the deceased back to her parents' house but brought her back two days later. She was found dead in her matrimonial home eight days later. Both the trial court and high court convicted the mother-in-law and husband of dowry death under Section 304B. The

1. BY : Riddhi Parida
B.A LLB – B – 3RD SEM
2083108

2.  As per Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act,1961 which says that dowry is any
property or valuable security directly or
indirectly agreed to be given by-
 (a) by one party to a marriage to the other
party to the marriage; or
 (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage
or by any other person, to either party to the
marriage or to any other person, at or before
or any time after the marriage in connection
with the marriage of the said parties.

3.  Section-304(B) under The Indian Penal Code defines “Dowry
Death” (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown
that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or har-
assment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be
called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be
deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.—For the purpose
of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in
section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
 (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years
but which may extend to imprisonment for life.]

4.  Death of woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury
nor otherwise under normal circumstances.
 Death should have been occurred within 7 years of her
marriage.
 The woman must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassments by her husband or any relative of her husband.
 Such cruelty or harassments should be or in connection with,
any demand for dowry.
 Such cruelty or harassment should have been subjected soon
before her death.
 It death of women caused under the above circumstance, the
husband and husband's relative will be presumed to have
caused a dowry death and be liable for the offences, unless it
is proved otherwise.


5.  As per Section 41 of The Code Of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 the police officer while
arresting any person without a warrant, be
satisfied with the complaint registered
against a person and fulfil all the provision of
Section 41 of CrPC.

6.  Facts
 Appellant No. 1 is the husband and his deceased wife Urmil. They after some time
Shifted to Sonepat (Harayana).
 Urmil returned back to her parent’s house within a few days of her marriage and
complained about the demands of dowry for refrigerator, scooter etc. She did not fulfil
the demands and was subjected to face torture and harassment by the appellants like
commenting on her that she looks ugly etc. As a result of such comments and taunts by
the appellants, she committed suicide and died due to the burn injuries.
 The case was registered against the accused namely her husband, father-in-law and
mother-in-law. In court, it was argued by the learned counsel of the appellant that there
is no offence committed here as it does not fulfil the essential ingredients of Section
304B of Indian Penal Code and also no evidence was found out that soon before her
death the deceased in any way was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection
with the demand for dowry.
 Issue
 Whether she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment soon before her death and the
same was in connection with the demand for dowry.
 Whether the demand asked for a refrigerator, scooter etc is a desire to acquire or a
dowry demand.

7.  The learned counsel of the appellant argued that the mere desire to acquire a refrigerator, scooter etc.
should not come within the ambit of demanding dowry and cannot be held as an offence as this would
not come under the definition of dowry under Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 with Section
304B and Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
 It was held by the Court that Demand for dowry itself is an offence under Section 304B and to be an
offence under this it does not requires that an agreement for it should be necessarily present.
 The court also held him guilty under Section 498A subjecting her to cruelty or harassment by passing
comments on her looks and also taunting her to bring more dowry.
 Pawan Kumar appellant No.1 under Section 304B was sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment
and liable to pay fine of Rs 500 and in default of paying fine 6 months will be added to his
imprisonment.
 And under 306 IPC was sentenced to 4 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200 and in
default of the payment 3 months will be added to his imprisonment and also held him guilty under
Section 498A sentenced him for 2 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs 200 fine in default more 3
months to his imprisonment will be added.
 All the sentences should run simultaneously.
 Appellant No.2 and appellant No. 3 the court here gave them the benefit of doubt and acquitted them.

8.  Facts of the case.
 In this case, the deceased, Jaikali Devi and the appellant got married in 1988. At the time of marriage, Rs 40000 was paid
as dowry. During her second Bidai (Durgaman), the groom’s side demanded a she-buffalo. The demand was not fulfilled.
The deceased had complained about the ill-treatment and torture by her husband and other members of his family several
times.
 On 28 November 1989, her brother, Sudhir Kumar Mahto, heard some rumours in the village with respect to the murder of
the deceased (her sister). After that, he, his father, brother and uncle, went to the appellant’s village. The body of her sister
(deceased) was lying in the verandah, and there was some blood coming out of her mouth. Also, there were several marks
of violence on her neck.
 Judgement of the case.
 Judgement of the case.
 During the trial of the Sessions Court, it was observed that it was not the case of natural death. And, the court recorded the
conviction under section 304B of IPC, and the punishment for ten years of imprisonment was granted to her husband. He
then appealed to the High Court.
 The High Court upheld the conviction. However, it reduced the sentence to seven years. He then appealed to the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court held that the collected reading of section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B of
the Indian Penal Code ascertains that there must be some material or proof to show that soon before the victim’s death, she
has suffered cruelty or harassment.
 Also, the court stated that in the cases of dowry death, the presumption is that direct evidence is not necessarily required.
Also, nothing was brought by the defence on record to explain the injuries on the neck of the deceased. And, hence the
conviction of the husband under section 304B was justified.ases of dowry death, the presumption is that direct evidence is
not necessarily required. Also, nothing was brought by the defence on record to explain the injuries on the neck of the
deceased. And, hence the conviction of the husband under section 304B was justified.

9.  During the trial of the Sessions Court, it was observed that it was not the case of natural
death. And, the court recorded the conviction under section 304B of IPC, and the
punishment for ten years of imprisonment was granted to her husband. He then
appealed to the High Court.
 The High Court upheld the conviction. However, it reduced the sentence to seven years.
He then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the collected
reading of section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B of the Indian Penal
Code ascertains that there must be some material or proof to show that soon before the
victim’s death, she has suffered cruelty or harassment.
 Also, the court stated that in the cases of dowry death, the presumption is that direct
evidence is not necessarily required. Also, nothing was brought by the defence on
record to explain the injuries on the neck of the deceased. And, hence the conviction of
the husband under section 304B was justified.ases of dowry death, the presumption is
that direct evidence is not necessarily required. Also, nothing was brought by the
defence on record to explain the injuries on the neck of the deceased. And, hence the
conviction of the husband under section 304B was justified.

10.  Kanta Devi, the deceased, was married to the accused in May 1990. After two months of
marriage, the deceased’s mother-in-law (accused 1) went to her father’s house and demanded
a motorcycle as her son (accused 2) wanted to start a house milk vending business. But as the
father of the deceased was poor, he indicated his inability to fulfil the demand.
 Thereafter, the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased started harassing her badly and
told her father that if he does not give a motorcycle, they will not allow Kanta Devi to live in the
matrimonial house.
 The husband of the deceased took her to her father’s house five days before the
Rakshabandhan, left her there and returned to his house on the same day.
 The deceased told her father about the harassment and ill-treatment done by her husband and
her mother-in-law. But two days before Rakshabandhan, Kanta was taken from her parent’s
house by her husband, asserting that his brother’s engagement has to be performed. The
statement made by her husband was utterly false.
 After about eight days (on 12 August 1990), the father of the deceased was informed by other
villagers that Kanta was dead. When her father went to the house of accused 1 and 2 along
with some other persons, he saw the dead body of the Kanta lying in the room. And, as Kanta’s
death appeared to have taken place in unnatural circumstances, the father of the deceased
filed a case.

11.  Judgement of the case.
 The Trial Court held her mother-in-law and husband guilty of committing an
offence under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. They were given
punishment for seven years of rigorous imprisonment. When the appeal was
made to High Court, it agreed to the Trial Court, and the appeal was
rejected.
 The appeal was then made to the Supreme Court. The apex court held that
demand for any property or valuable security having nexus with marriage
constitutes dowry demand. The cause or reason for such demand is
immaterial. It observed that the deceased was harassed by the accused after
her father denied fulfilling the demand. Hence, harassment driving the
deceased to commit suicide is dowry death.
 Accordingly, the appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court, and the time of
two months was given to accused 1 to surrender for going through the
imprisonment conferred to her.

12.  In this case, the couple was married and after 5-6 months of their marriage husband,
sister-in-law and mother-in-law started taunting the wife of the husband for bringing
less dowry. They started demanding several things from her which was not fulfilled by
her. The prosecutor filed a case for torturing the deceased and subjected her to cruelty
in order to make her bring more dowry.
 Gradually the torture on her increased so much that the mother-in-law hit her with a
sharp blade on her forehead causing a deep cut over there.
 She was unable to tolerate the ill-treatment by her husband and by her in-laws on her,
as a result, she committed suicide by consuming naphthalene balls and died.
 During the investigation, the sharp-edged blade was recovered and after the completion
of the investigation husband, sister-in-law and mother-in-law were charged under the
Section of 304-B, 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. And the case against them
was registered.
 The Court after examining all the evidences, it was held that persons who are charged
under Section 304-B, 306 and 498-A will be free from these criminal charges as the
prosecution failed to produce the evidence against them and only mother-in-law will be
held guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code as voluntarily causing hurt to her
daughter-in-law. And imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000, failing to pay the fine will attract
simple imprisonment for 1 month.

13.  In this case, the deceased and Ashok Kumar (apellant) were married for
two years.The father of the girl had given sufficient dowry at the at the
time of marriage according to his mean,desire and capacity but the
mother in law and brother in law of her were not satisfied so they
allegedly harassed and maltreated , deceased , gave beatings.One week
prior to the incident the deceased came to the house of her father and
narrated them the whole scenario.She stated that her husband wanted to
start a new business for which h e required Rs.5000.But the father could
not arrange for the same due to which her mother in law burnt the
deceased by sprinkling kerosene oil as the result of which the deceased
died.
 Ashok Kumar,mother in law and brother in law were found guilty of an
offence under Section 304B and underwent rigorous imprisonment for
10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.While upholding the conviction,the
apex court held that since the accused is a young person of 48 years ,
keeping in the dacts and circumstances of the case the court awarded 7
years imprisonment.

14.  In cases to curb the rate of dowry deaths, harassment or cruelty more female police
personnel should be inducted so available in a situation relating to unnatural deaths of
women. In the interest of proper investigation and justice, the investigation cannot be
done below the rank of assistant commissioner. Punishment for abetment of suicide
must be raised to up to seven years. A rational and practical approach to the above-
mentioned matter will certainly be helpful.