This article has been written by Ms. TANYA, a student of BA.LLB from GITARATTAN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL, ROHINI.  

The Author is a 3rd year Law student.

 

TITLE: DOWRY DEATH

 

Introduction 

 

Dowry death is a term used to describe the murder or suicide of a woman as a 

result of disputes or demands for dowry payments from her husband or in-laws. 

Dowry is a cultural tradition in many parts of the world, where the bride’s family 

provides gifts, property or money to the groom’s family as a part of the marriage

 agreement. While this practice is intended to support the new couple, it can 

sometimes lead to exploitation and violence against women.

 

In many countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and some parts of 

Africa, dowry is still prevalent, despite being illegal in some places. When a 

woman’s family is unable to meet the demands of her husband or in-laws for a

 dowry payment, it can result in verbal or physical abuse, and in extreme cases, the 

woman’s death.

 

Dowry deaths are a serious human rights issue and are often underreported due to 

social and cultural pressures. Governments and organizations around the world are

 working to raise awareness of the issue and to promote policies and programs to 

protect women from this harmful practice.

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Iran. 

India reports the highest total number of dowry deaths with 8,391 such deaths

 reported in 2010, meaning there are 1.4 deaths per 100,000 women. Female 

dowry deaths account for 40 to 50 percent of all female homicides recorded 

annually in India, representing a stable trend over the period 1999 to 2016. 

Adjusted for population, Pakistan, with 2,000 reported such deaths per year, has 

the highest rate of dowry death at 2.45 per 100,000 women.

 

Details of the concept-

 

Dowry death, also known as bride burning, is a heinous crime that involves the 

murder of a woman by her husband or in-laws as a result of a dispute over dowry. 

The victim is usually a young bride who is subjected to physical and emotional 

abuse, harassment, and torture by her husband and his family for not meeting their 

dowry demands.

 

Dowry deaths are prevalent in many parts of the world, especially in South Asia, 

where the dowry system is deeply ingrained in the culture. According to the 

National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) of India, more than 7,000 women were 

killed in dowry-related crimes in the country in 2016 alone.

 

The reasons for demanding dowry can vary from family to family, but often stem 

from the desire for financial gain or social status. In some cases, the husband or his 

family may demand additional dowry payments after the marriage, and if the 

woman’s family is unable to meet these demands, it can lead to violence against 

her.

 

Dowry deaths can take many forms, including burning, poisoning, strangling, and 

drowning. The perpetrators of these crimes often try to make it look like a suicide 

or an accident to cover up their crime.

 

Despite laws against dowry in many countries, the practice persists due to cultural 

and social norms. However, governments and organizations are working to raise 

awareness about dowry deaths and to provide support and protection for women 

who are at risk. This includes education campaigns, legal reforms, and support 

services for victims and their families.

 

Dowry death is a form of domestic violence and femicide, which is the killing of 

women based on their gender. It is a serious human rights violation and a 

significant social problem in many parts of the world. Women who are subjected to 

dowry demands and violence are often from poor and marginalized communities 

and are at a higher risk of experiencing other forms of violence, such as sexual 

assault and harassment.

 

Dowry deaths can have long-term impacts on the victim’s family and the broader 

community. They often result in a loss of life, and the physical and psychological 

trauma can lead to long-term mental health issues for the victim’s family and 

friends. They also perpetuate the cycle of violence against women and reinforce 

patriarchal attitudes that devalue women and their contributions.

 

In many countries, including India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, there are laws in 

place to protect women from dowry demands and violence. However, the 

enforcement of these laws can be weak due to cultural and social attitudes that 

normalize dowry demands and perpetuate gender-based violence. The lack of 

enforcement and the limited access to legal recourse can make it challenging for 

women to seek justice for dowry-related violence.

 

To address this issue, various initiatives have been undertaken, including 

community education and awareness-raising programs, legal aid services for 

victims and their families, and the provision of safe spaces and shelters for 

survivors of dowry violence. These initiatives aim to empower women, change 

societal attitudes towards gender, and promote gender equality and women’s rights.

 

Conclusion on dowry death

 

In conclusion, dowry death is a serious human rights issue and a form of violence 

against women that persists in many parts of the world. Women who are subjected

 to dowry demands and violence face a range of physical, emotional, and 

psychological trauma, and the impact of these crimes extends to their families and 

communities. While there are laws and initiatives aimed at protecting women from 

dowry demands and violence, more needs to be done to address the root causes of 

this issue and to change societal attitudes towards gender. The promotion of gender 

equality and women’s rights, along with education and awareness-raising efforts, 

can play an essential role in preventing dowry deaths and creating a safer and more 

just world for women.

 

CASE LAWS

 

Ajay Kumar vs The State of Nct of Delhi on 15 April, 2009

Author: Sunil Gaur

 

                  HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI

 

            Judgment reserved on: April 01, 2009

 

            Judgment delivered on: April 15, 2009

                       Crl. Appeal No. of 260 of 1999

Ajay Kumar             …                  Appellant

         Through: Mr. K. B. Andley, Senior Counsel

                  with Mr. Harish Kumar and Mr. M.

                  Shamikh, Advocates

 

                                         versus

 

The State of NCT of Delhi     …

Respondent

                 Through: Mr. Amit Sharma,

                    Additional Public Prosecutor for

                    State

CORAM:

 

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

 

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment?

 

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

 

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

 

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the conviction of the appellant-husband for the offence of „dowry death‟. Vide judgement and order on sentence of 12th April, 1999 and 19th April, 1999, respectively, appellant- Ajay Kumar has been convicted and sentenced to RI for two years and fine of Rupees two Crl. A. No. 260/1999 Page 1 thousand under Section 498-Aof the IPC and in default thereof, RI for six months and to a further sentence of RI for ten years with fine of Rupees fifty thousand under Section 304-Bof the IPC, and in default thereof, to RI for three years by the court of Sessions. Out of the fine, if realised, sum of Rs.50,000/- has been given to heirs of deceased by the trial court.
2. The case of the prosecution is that appellant-Ajay Kumar was married to Anju on 11th November, 1997. He subjected her to cruelty with a view to coerce her for bringing money from her parents and harassed her and that on 1st March, 1998, Anju committed suicide by hanging herself in her parental house.
3. Prosecution version as unfolded by Inder Sain Jain PW-1 is that a sum of Rupees one lac fifty thousand was spent on the wedding of his daughter- Anju, who after about eight days of her marriage with Ajay Kumar, came to her parental house and complained of being harassed and beaten by her husband (appellant) after consuming liquor, on the pretext that the said marriage was against his wishes and he wanted to marry some other girl named- Kajal, whom he loved and was Crl.A. No. 260/1999 Page 2 working in telephone exchange and also of being threatened by him that either he would desert her or would kill her. On the advice of mediator-Preeti, Anju went back to her matrimonial house where she was again beaten by Ajay Kumar who demanded Rupees one lac for running a lottery counter. Inder Sain Jain (PW-1) gave a sum of Rupees fifty thousand to Ajay Kumar to fulfil this demand. On 27th February, 1998, Anju came back to her parental house at about 10:00 a.m. and complained of being beaten by her in-laws as they wanted Ajay to marry some other girl. While her mother-in-law had demanded a gold chain for herself and a saree worth Rupees twelve hundred, whereas her father-in-law had demanded a colour TV and fridge. She also stated that she apprehended danger and threat to her life while being in her matrimonial house, so she had escaped from her matrimonial house on the pretext of going for nature’s call. It is further asserted that on 1st March, 1998, while being in her parental house, Anju hanged herself and committed suicide on account of ill treatment by her in-laws and her husband. Legal action was taken on his statement (EX. PW1/A), which was recorded by the SDM concerned.

Crl. A. No. 260/1999 Page 3

4. Yasbir Singh PW-7, Investigating Officer of this case, on receipt of DD No. 11-A (EX PW6/A), reached at the house of parents of the deceased, where the dead body of Anju was hanging from a ceiling iron rod with a saree. Inquest proceedings (EX PW7/A) were carried out by the SDM and the dead body was sent for post mortem. FIR No. 37 of 1998, under Section 498-Aand 304-Br/w Section 34 of the IPC was registered at Police Station Geeta Colony, Delhi and accused persons were arrested in this case.
5. Trial began as appellant and his co-accused chose to contest charges under Section 304-B/498-A/34of IPC, framed against them by trial court.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined six witnesses at trial. Inder Sain Jain PW-1 and Suman PW-2 are the parents of the deceased, PW-4 Mam Chand, is the maternal uncle (mama) of the deceased, Dr. Ashok Jaiswal PW-8 has proved the medical record (EX. PW8/A) and Sub-Inspector Yasbir Singh PW-7 is the Investigating Officer of this case.
7. In his statement under Section 313of the Cr.P.C., the appellant/accused- Ajay Kumar claimed to be Crl.A. No. 260/1999 Page 4 innocent and claimed that no dowry or money was demanded and alleged that his wife Anju was murdered by her parents and he had been falsely implicated in this case. Defence witness stated that accused persons were innocent as there was no demand of dowry at the time of the marriage in question and no one had complained to him about any harassment of the deceased on account of any dowry demand and he claims to state so, as he had acted as a Mediator in arranging the marriage in question.
8. The trial culminated in the conviction of the appellant, not only for the offence of dowry death but also for committing the offence of subjecting the deceased to cruelty.
9. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard in this appeal and with their assistance, the evidence on record has been analysed.
10. In this appeal, the impugned judgment is being questioned by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in respect of the nature of offence only and rightly so, in view of the suicide note (EX. P-2). On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that at Crl. A. No. 260/1999 Page 5 best, the offence made out would fall under Section 498-Aof the Indian Penal Code only.
11. The fate of this case primarily rests upon the Suicide Note (Ex. P-2) which is beyond any challenge as it had been recovered from the person of Anju (since deceased) who had died unnatural death in her parental house. The Suicide Note (EX. P-2) reads as under: –

” Main Anju apni Zindgi se bahut tang aa gai hoon. Mere pati ne, ek ladki ke liye mujhe chod diya hai. Meri zindgi barbad kar di hai. Isliye main aise zindgi nahin zee sakti hoon. Main apni khushi se aatamhatya kar rahi hoon”.

12. Even the parents of the deceased have stated so in their evidence and the trial court has commented upon their evidence in the following words: –

“It seems to me that these facts were added by this witness on account of psychological hatred which he bore for accused persons, since he thought that the accused persons were accountable for tragic end of his daughter. Same had been the situation of the testimony of Smt. Suman Jain. She had also improved facts on the counts as referred above. Therefore, testimony of Sh. Inder Sain Jain and Smt. Suman Jain on the aforesaid counts are to be discarded.”

13. To convict the appellant/accused for the offence of dowry death, trial court has relied upon the evidence of father (PW-1) of the deceased who has stated in his evidence that the appellant/accused had demanded Crl.A. No. 260/1999 Page 6 Rupees one lac from him on 4th or 5th February, 1998 and he had paid Rupees fifty thousand to him on 10th February, 1998. This incident is of 1st March, 1998. The scrutiny of the evidence of the father (PW-1) reveals that it is neither his case, nor of any other witness that during the period intervening 10th February, 1998 and 1st March, 1998, the deceased was subjected to any cruelty by appellant/accused for having not paid the demanded amount i.e., Rupees fifty thousand. Had the deceased nursed any grievance on account of alleged demand of Rupees one lac by the appellant/accused, then she would have definitely made a mention of it, in her suicide note. No such grievance has been made in the suicide note. Thus, it is crystal clear that the alleged dowry demand was not the cause of the suicide of the deceased. Trial court has fallen into grave error in ignoring the contents of the suicide note (EX. P-2) and by relying upon the evidence of the father of the deceased to convict the appellant/accused for the offence of dowry death. It is so said because it has come in the evidence of father of the deceased that he was running a merchandise shop in the village and he had to borrow handsome amount for installing the Crl.A. No. 260/1999 Page 7 lottery counter and he was not an income tax payee since beginning. He has stated in his evidence that he had borrowed the money from one Mukesh (PW-3). For reasons best known, Mukesh (PW-3) appeared before the trial court to depose, but he was given up as unnecessary by the State.
14. After carefully examining the testimonies of the material witnesses, i.e. of parents of the deceased and the Suicide Note (EX. P-2), I am of the considered opinion that in view of the demeanour of the parents of the deceased as noted by the trial court, it would not be safe to blindly rely upon what father of the deceased had to say about the dowry demand to bring the offence within the sweep of Section 304-Bof the IPC. Had there been any harassment of the deceased on account of the dowry demands, certainly it would have found mention in the Suicide Note (EX. P-2). Therefore, without any hesitation, I extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant/accused in respect of the offence of dowry death. However, it remains to be seen as to what offence has been committed by the appellant/ accused.
15. The contents of the Suicide Note (Ex. P-2) as referred to above, makes it abundantly clear that the Crl.A. No. 260/1999 Page 8 wife of the appellant/ accused was subjected to a mental cruelty as the appellant/ accused had left her for another girl and for the hapless wife, there was no other option except to get frustrated by the aforesaid conduct of the appellant accused and out of extreme frustration, wife of the appellant/ accused committed suicide. If not the appellant/accused, who else is to be blamed for it.
16. In my considered view, there remains no doubt that the appellant/accused by his aforesaid conduct, as reflected in the Suicide Note (Ex. P-2), he has abetted the commission of suicide by his wife. It is true that appellant/accused has been charged for a graver offence of dowry death but he can always be convicted for a lesser offence under Section 306of the IPC.
17. In the case of „Dalbir Singh vs. State of U.P.’ 2004 (4) Scale 238, Apex Court has declared that in a given case it is possible to convict the accused for the offence under Section 306of the IPC, if a charge for the said offence has not been framed against him and the relevant observations made are as under:-

“Therefore, in view of Section 464 Cr.P.C., it is possible for the appellate or revisional Court to convict the accused for an offence for which no Crl.A. No. 260/1999 Page 9 charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would in fact occasion. In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Sangarabonia Sreenu (supra) was not correctly decided as it purports to lay down as a principle of law that where the accused is charged under Section 302 IPC, he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC”.

18. While relying upon the Suicide Note (Ex.P-2), the conviction of the appellant/accused stands altered from the offence under Section 304-Bto one under Section 306of the IPC and the conviction of the appellant/ accused for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, is unimpeachable and is hereby maintained. The offence under Section 306 of the IPC does not carry any minimum sentence.
19. On the question of sentence, it needs to be noticed that at the time of this incident appellant/accused was in his early twenties and as per the Nominal Roll of the appellant/accused, he has remained in custody for a period of nine months. During Crl.A. No. 260/1999 Page 10 the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this court that the appellant/ accused has faced the agony of trial and appeal proceedings in this case since March, 1998 and in the last decade or so, he has remained on bail and has remarried and is settled in life and has not only a wife and minor child to support, but also to support his old an ailing mother. Reliance has been placed upon a decision reported in 2004 (3) CC Cases (HC) 181 to contend that in a similar case, for the offence under Section 306of the IPC custodial sentence of about five months was found to be sufficient and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by him. In the instant case also, imposing a hard punishment would not serve any useful purpose and would rather prove to be detrimental. In the peculiar circumstances of this case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the appellant/ accused, the substantive sentence of nine months, already undergone by the appellant, would serve the ends of justice. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC is set aside and the appellant/ accused is convicted for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC Crl.A. No. 260/1999 Page 11 and is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine remains the same i.e., appellant/accused has to pay a fine of Rupees fifty thousand and in the event of his defaulting to pay this fine, he shall have to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. During the pendency of this appeal, the sentence imposed upon the appellant was suspended subject to his depositing fifty per cent of the fine imposed. Appellant/accused is granted three weeks’ time to pay the fine and if he defaults, then he will have to undergo the sentence in default, as stipulated above. The substantive sentence for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant but the sentence of fine is maintained. Trial court be apprised of this order, to ensure its compliance i.e., of disbursement of fine amount of Rupees fifty thousand to the heirs of the deceased.
20. This appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.

Sunil Gaur, J.

April 15, 2009References

 

1. Indian penal code
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/dowry-death-understanding-basics/?amp=1
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/dowry-death-understanding-basics/?amp=1

Aishwarya Says:

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening