Citation: 1992 WLN UC 66
Decided on: 9 March, 1992
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Bench: Justice B.R. Arora
INTRODUCTION
The ultimate objective of marriage is to make sure that two hands are joined forever. But in fact, a lot of them are happening with some other cause which in itself destructs the main objective. One of such destruction is dowry. “Dowry” means money or property brought by the bride to her husband’s family or by the parents of either party are involved.1 The section has never mentioned the bride,but since we were living in a patriarchal society it is presumed. The important aspect of our analysis is even more intolerable, i.e. dowry death, which means death which occurred due to the pressure created by the groom or their family for obtaining dowry. The Indian National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) has registered 8,331 cases in India on dowry death in 2011. A total of 24,771 cases have been recorded in our country in the past three years.
The case that will be discussed in this analysis is of the same nature, wherein the husband had tortured his wife and beaten her up for not providing a property that he had asked for and so the wife had committed suicide along with her child. Therefore, the charges had been filed under S.498A, 304B of IPC, 1860 and in this case comment, I will be discussing the provisions involved in this case and how it has been interpreted.2
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The appellant and the deceased got married in the year 1986,when she became pregnant within 1 ¼th year of marriage, she was sent to her paternal house for the delivery, as a custom. After the delivery, when the in-laws came to their house to take back the child and the deceased, there were a lot of gifts that were shared but the appellant especially demanded a golden ring and gold chain which was not provided. Since it was not provided, the appellant was annoyed due to which the deceased was subjected to torture and beating. The appellant also stated that he would never let her go to her parental house anymore.
Once this information was gathered by the father of the deceased, he had sent her second daughter along with the uncle of the deceased to get her back home. All of a sudden, she went missing when they got to the appellant house and the uncle asked the father of the deceased to verify whether she got home.When it is realized that she was missing, they all were searching for her. Finally, the father of the deceased realized that she had committed suicide when they found the body of the child lying in the well. The father of the deceased had filed a report on which the case has been registered for offences under S.498A and 304B of IPC,1860.
ARGUMENTS
For the appellant:
The learned counsel stated that the parental house and the appellant house are in the same vicinity within 200 metres and there was neither a report alleging that there was a demand for dowry nor cruelty.The counsel stressed more on the point that there is not a single witness who could state that there was any sort of cruelty or demand for dowry. To establish offence under S.304B of IPC, soon before death, the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty by the accused concerning the demand of dowry, which was stated as missing in this case by the learned counsel for the appellant.
For the respondent:
The learned counsel while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence in the lower court stated the important point that the deceased was subjected to cruelty which is evident from the testimony of various witnesses. Countering the opponent counsel, he stated that these types of offences usually take place within the four walls of the house, and therefore, there is not a possibility that anyone would have witnessed it. He stated that the deceased was not allowed to meet anybody from her parental house for the last 5 months from her death, even though the parental house remains to be in the same vicinity. From which, we can observe the extent of cruelty that has taken place. He also brought in the concept of presumption of dowry death under S.113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the death was unnatural and happened within two years of marriage due to the demand for dowry.
LAWS DISCUSSED
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
S.498A deals with a punishable offence committed by the husband or relative of the husband to a woman, who was subjected to cruelty. The punishment may not extend three years of imprisonment and may also be liable to pay fine.
S.304B deals with another punishable offence known as“Dowry Death”,which means a death happened within seven years of marriage due to the demand of dowry made by the husband or a relative of the husband and the death should be the subsequent act of either harassment or cruelty. The punishment shall not be less than seven years of imprisonment and it may extend to imprisonment for life.
JUDGMENT
The lower court had convicted the appellant under S.304B and S.498A of IPC. He was ordered to undergo a sentence under S.498A for One-year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100 and in case of default he has to undergo another 15 days of simple imprisonment and under S.304B for Seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Even in this appeal, Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant as stated by the lower court.
ISSUES
Whether the appellant can be convicted under S.304B and S.498A for the death of the deceased?
Whether the demand by the appellant amounts to dowry?
ANALYSIS
The decision of the court is appropriate and I agree with it. The decision conforms to the existing law, which could be proved with the clarification of certain statements with the help of previous judgments.
In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab3, wherein the post mortem report of the deceased proves the existence of cruelty and it is due to the refusal of demand of dowry by the parental house of thedeceased.TheparentofthedeceasedfiledacaseunderS.302andS.304ofIPC.Inthiscase, they have clearly explained the meaning of “Soon before”.The court stated that the term“soon before” is not synonymous with “immediately before”. This implies the interval should not be too long but it should be of a reasonable time and it should not be determined to a particular instance but normally refers to a course of conduct. It does not mean that the time could be stretchedtoanyperiodbut the proximate and live link between the cruelty based on dowry demand should be proven.
The question as to whether it amounts to dowry has been answered in the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana4, the brief facts of this case are that the deceased went back to her paternal house after marriage complaining that the appellant had been consistently demanding for scooter and refrigerator. The non- fulfilment of which leads to taunting and harassment caused to the deceased. Charges under S.304B and S.498 were framed. The court while determining whether this amounts to dowry stated that the persistent demand for such things would constitute to be in connection with the marriage as per S.2 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 and it would be a ‘demand for dowry’ within the ambit of S.304B of IPC. It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry. Cruelty or harassment need not be only physical, evenmental pressure and torture would be with in the ambit of S.304B and S.498.
As far as the case in hand in hand is concerned, right from the day when the deceased refused to fulfil the demand of the appellant, she was subjected to torture and cruelty. From then, she wasnotgivenachancetogotoherparentalhousewhichwasjust200metresaway,would also constitute mental cruelty. The term “soon before death” is proven to be existing with the help of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab. Therefore, from all the analyses made, we could justify that the wilful act of the appellant would constitute ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of S.304B and S.498A and all the necessities were fulfilled in invoking these provisions.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
According to Article 6 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, “Dowry Death” amounts to a violation of Right to life.5 Despite having legislation on preserving women’s rights, every day there are 15 women who are caused to death by the new husbands or relatives of them for failing to bring sufficient dowry. Human rights education, particularly as it relates to dowry deaths and other domestic violence, should be established as a life-long system for all individuals from childhood.
By-
Arun Nachiappan
1 Dowry Prohibition Act, No.28 of1961, S.2
224,771 dowry deaths reported in last 3 yrs: Government, ECONOMIC TIMES, July.31, 2015 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/24771-dowry-deaths-reported-in-last-3-yrs- government/articleshow/48296551.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cpp st
3Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (MANU/SC/0296/2000)
4Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (MANU/SC/0104/1998)
5AngelaK.CarlsonWhitley,DowryDeath:AViolationoftheRighttoLifeUnderArticleSixoftheInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, DIGITAL COMMONS, 1(1994), https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1432&context=sulr