DOWRY DEATHBY : MANASVI MADHU

PARIDHI GAIROLA

"And give women (on marriage) their dower

(Mahr) as a free gift; but if they, of their own

good pleasure, remit any part of it to you,

take it and enjoy it with right good cheer." (Al-

Qur'an : The Women' :4)

INTRODUCTIONDowry is a notion peculiar to the Indian Subcontinent, not being found anywhere else in the world.

While in the usual case it would be a matter of pride to study a piece of legislation unique to the Indian setup, in this particular case it brings about nothing but shame.

Dowry death, Murder-suicide and bride burning are all palpable symptoms of a peculiar social malady, wherein women have, for centuries been exploited, abused and mistreated by their husbands or their families due to their inability to meet their demands for dowry payments, most of which result purely from the greed of the husbands’ family.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

This project is aimed at examining the

possible interpretations of the term

“soon before death,” as provided under

Section 304B of the Indian Penal code,

pertaining to the offence of dowry death.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of this project is a broad

overview of the topic at hand by

analysing a plethora of case law in this

regard. This project concentrates upon

the element of “soon before death”, and

the other essential elements required to

constitute an offence under Section

304B of the IPC have not been studied

in much detail.

ENACTMENTS TO COMBAT DOWRY:

A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

• The first step taken by the legislatures against the practice of dowry was the Enactment of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, which made the giving or taking of any dowry illegal.

• It made dowry harassment and dowry death a non-bailable offence, doing much to dampen the giving and taking of dowry by imposing fines, criminal imprisonment and even holding the husband and his family guilty for demanding or advertising for dowry.

• This is the accepted definition of dowry in Indian law, with the IPC simply referring back to the same under Section 304B, enacted via the Dowry prohibition (amendment) Act of 1986.

SECTION 304B:

PROVISIONS 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 harassment 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 purposes of this sub- section," dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961 ).

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.

SURVEY OF DOWRY

DEATH A woman is killed every hour in India

because her family failed to meet her husband and in-laws' demands for higher dowry payments and lavish gifts.

There was a 74% increase in dowry-related deaths from1995 to 2007, while there was a 31% increase in the reporting of dowry-related suicides.

In 2007, the total number of dowry deaths and dowry-related suicides reported in India were 8093 and 3148, respectively.

CASE STUDIES

KANS RAJ V. STATE OF PUNJABIn this case, the victim Sunita Kumari was found dead in unnatural

circumstances, of asphyxiation at the house of her in-laws in October 1988,

three years after her marriage. The woman’s family was not informed of the

same, and came to know of it by accident when her brother came to her

house to deliver some presents, and came across preparations being made

to cremate the dead body of his sister. He immediately filed a complaint,

and investigations commenced into the same. The Trial Court convicted the

husband, his parents and his sister under Sections 304B, 306 (Abetment to

suicide) and 498A (cruelty to a woman within the marital precinct) of the

IPC and sentenced to imprisonment, along with a fine. This decision was

challenged by the accused in the High court. Similarly, the parents of the

victim also filed a revision petition in the High Court, seeking for enhanced

punishment under Section 304B, with both these aforesaid petitions being

heard together. The High Court judge acquitted the accused of all charges,

also dismissing the revision petition on procedural grounds and

inadmissibility of certain evidence.

Pawan Kumar v. State of HaryanaThe deceased died of burns only a day after she had returned from her

parents‟ house in May 1987 after a quarrel with her husband over

dowry demands. The evidence inescapably pointed towards the

conclusion that the quarrel, alongside other evidence constituted

cruelty in connection with marriage, and attracted punishment for the

husband under Section 304B. The in-laws of the deceased were let off

in the absence of any cogent evidence against them, with there

existing only general pointers indicating the same.

Rajinder Singh v. State of HaryanaThe Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the trial court‟s decision of

convicting the husband, stating that even though the death of the wife

occurred within the mandated seven year period, it occurred almost to

years after the demands for dowry had subsided, and as such no

presumption could be raised against the accused under Section 113B

of the Evidence Act.

KESHAB CHANDRA PANDA V. STATE OF

ORISSAIn this case there did not exist enough proximity between the acts of

dowry harassment and the actual death of the woman, in order for

Section 304B to come into play. In this case, some difference cropped

up between the deceased and her husband a few months after their

marriage in 1989. The husband assaulted the deceased with an iron

rod, which led to the deceased shifting to her parents‟ house, and

efforts being made to bring about amity between the couple. Finally, the

deceased returned to her marital home in March 1991, where she

expired two days later under suspicious circumstances. Investigations

were undertaken, and the husband was charged for causing dowry

death under Section 304B. The Court, looking at the facts of the case

was of the opinion that there was no evidence of any cruelty to the

deceased by her husband or his relatives in almost two years before

her death, since she was residing with her parents during the said

period. The prior instances of assault with an iron rod were far too back

in time to be relevant to the present death, and the chain of causation

had thus been broken in this respect. As such, the „soon before death‟

clause was not satisfied, and the accused could not be charged under

the Section.

MRS. MONIKA KUMARMonika was pregnant when she hanged herself. She was the wife of

constable Mohit Kumar. She was allegedly killed by her husband and

in-laws in Etawa village. The victim’s father had lodged the complaint.

He said that the husband and in-laws were demanding for dowry since

the time of marriage which was just an year ago. The constable had

been sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment and his parents for 6

months.

MRS. SOWMYA CHANDRA

CONCLUSIONS

The „Soon before death‟ clause under S. 304B has been criticised by various NGO‟s and social reformers fighting against the menace of dowry death. It is felt that while the presumption of guilt under Section 304B can come into effect if any evidence of cruelty before the woman’s death can be proven, such evidence itself may be very hard to come by, since the IPC‟s definition of cruelty itself is quite broad and difficult to prove. Further, since in most cases, the husband and his family are the only witnesses to dowry deaths, they may often resort to hiding or tampering with evidence, further complicating the situation.

SUGGESTIONS

First and foremost we must educate the people about the laws.

Sometimes, some families until a very long time do not complain and usually the perpetrators of this heinous crime usually go scot-free. Therefore if an issue as such rises up they should take an action immediately.

Role of parents of bride too is very important out here. When one gives money in exchange of marriage , it is likely that more demand for money can come in future. Instead of bowing down to so called social practice what we need is empowerment of woman .

THANK YOU