[Section 304-B IPC] - Demanding money for construction of house is termed as dowry- Supreme Court said.
Trial Court correctly interpreted the demand for money raised by the respondents on the deceased for construction of a house as falling within the meaning of the word 'dowry' - Supreme Court.
The Apex Court of India comprising of CJI, N.V. Ramana and Justices A.S Bopanna and Hima Kohli have reportedly upheld the decision of the trial court and set aside the impugned judgment of in-the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that had acquitted the Respondents/accused from Section 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code while maintaining the order of conviction imposed on the husband of the deceased under Section 498-A, but reducing the sentence to three years but set aside the conviction and sentence under the same Section to father-in-law of the deceased.
The deceased then 18 years old was married to the respondent/husband in a social marriage organisation function called as 'Samuhik vivaah Sammelan'. The deceased died at her matrimonial home by committing suicide in less than 4 years of her marriage due to the harassment meted out by her in laws within a few months of her marriage. Thereafter, her in laws were subjected to trial for offence of abetting suicide, dowry harassment and dowry death.
The Learned Additional Sessions Judge had convicted the respondents/accused, husband and father-in-law of the deceased under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A of the IPC and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and rigorous imprisonment of three years of the respective Sections. The trial court acquitted mother-in-law and brother-in-law due to lack of prosecution evidence. According to the statement of maternal uncle of the deceased, she was constantly harassed and subjected to cruelty by repeatedly demanding money to the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- for the construction of house.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, the respondents approached the High Court where the Court gave clean chit to the father-in-law whereas the husband was convicted under Section 498A only while setting aside conviction under Section 304B and 306 IPC. However the sentence under Section 498A was reduced to the period already undergone. The High Court had reportedly agreed with the submissions on behalf of the respondent/appellant therein that offence under Section 304B cannot established as the money demanded to the deceased was to construct a house and cannot be treated as dowry demand and cannot connect to death of deceased. The High Court relied on the rulings in K. Prema S. Rao and Another vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Others (2003) 1 SCC 217, Appasaheb and Another vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721, where it was held that the demand for money for construction of a house cannot be treated as demand for dowry.
So, aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the appeal was filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The Counsel for the State raised argument that the High Court has failed to appreciate the fact that deceased had been subjected to cruelty/harassment at the hands of the respondents soon before her death. The fact that the deceased was constantly demanding money from her to construct a house and purchase a plot of land was overlooked by the High Court.
Disagreeing with the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court pointed out that to make out offence under Section 304B IPC four pre-requisites must follow such as:
i) that the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance;
(ii) that such a death must have occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage;
(iii) that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of her husband, soon before her death; and
(iv) that such a cruelty or harassment must have been for or related to any demand for dowry.
The definition of the word 'dowry' has been defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,, 1961 which is extracted as:
“2. Definition of ‘dowry’ - In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly –
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage 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, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal law (Shariat) applies".
The Court also reiterated with the decision held in the case of Bachni Devi and Another vs State of Haryana (2013) 3 SCC 684 where the Court opined that Section 304-B was inserted in the IPC to combat the social evil of dowry demand that has reached the alarming proportions. It cannot be argued that in case of of ambiguity in the language used in the provision, the same ought to be construed strictly as that would amount to defeating the object of the provision.
The Court said that the trial court has correctly interpreted the demand for money raised by the respondents on the deceased for construction of a house as falling within the meaning of the word 'dowry'.
When the counsel of the respondent submitted that the deceased had on her own asked to contribute to the construction of the house, the Court was of the view that the respondents had been constantly tormenting the deceased to approach her family member for money and it was only on their persistence and insistence that she was compelled to ask them to contribute some amount for constructing a house. The Court must be sensitive to the social milieu from which the parties hail. Therefore view of the High Court that since the deceased herself joined her husband and father-in-law in demanding money for constructing a house cannot be be treated as dowry demand fell in error, the Apex Court opined. "It was not a case of complicity but a case of sheer helplessness faced by deceased in such adverse circumstances" - Supreme Court.
The submissions of the learned counsel of the State was contested by opposite counsel for which the Supreme Court was inclined to note the meaning of 'soon before her death' which was discussed in the several judgments giving stress on the provisions of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 304-B IPC.
The two provisions that contain the word 'soon before her death' have observation in the case of Surinder Singh vs. State of Haryana (2014) 4 SCC 129 wherein it has been made in the following:
".... For the presumptions contemplated under these sections to spring into, it is necessary to show that the cruelty of harassment was caused soon before the death. The interpretation of the words "soon before" is therefore, important. The question is how "soon before". This would obviously depend on the facts and circumstances
In the Case of Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207: the term of "soon before" was considered as a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no staitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term 'soon before' is not synonymous with the term 'immediately before' and is opposite of the expression 'soon after'.
Therefore, after taking into account all the facts of the case and evidences, the Supreme Court held the respondents responsible for the death of the deceased and deserved to be convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, but due to want of conclusive evidence they were acquitted under Section 306 IPC. However the Court reduced sentence from rigorous imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for seven years prescribed for an offence under Section 304B IPC.
Justice Hima Kohli referred
The Latin maxim “Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat” i.e, a liberal construction should be put up on written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible, and carry into effect, the intention of the parties, sums it up. Interpretation of a provision of law that will defeat the very intention of the legislature must be shunned in favour of an interpretation that will promote the object sought to be achieved through the legislation meant to uproot a social evil like dowry demand. In this context the word “Dowry” ought to be ascribed an expansive meaning so as to encompass any demand made on a woman, whether in respect of a property or a valuable security of any nature. When dealing with cases under Section 304-B IPC, a provision legislated to act as a deterrent in the society and curb the heinous crime of dowry demands, the shift in the approach of the courts ought to be from strict to liberal, from constricted to dilated. Any rigid meaning would tend to bring to naught, the real object of the provision. Therefore, a push in the right direction is required to accomplish the task of eradicating this evil which has become deeply entrenched in our society.
Case: State of Madhya Pradesh versus Jogendra & Anr (Criminal Appeal no. 190/2012)
DOJ: 11.01.2022
0 Comments