Demand for money for the construction of a house as defined by the word “dowry.” – SC
D.D: -January 11, 2022.
Apex court observed that 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
Sections 304-B and 306 of the IPC – Dowry Death – Conviction set aside by High Court – State preferred appeal – Facts – Victim married to the accused and in less than four years of her marriage – committed suicide at her matrimonial home by pouring kerosene oil – husband and father-in-law of Victim were found guilty – demanding money from the deceased for constructing a house which her family members were unable to give.
Dowry – define – consist of any property or valuable security and valuable security of any kind whatsoever – property or security can be given or even agreed – either directly or indirectly – actual giving of such property or security – not necessary – Such giving or agreeing to give can again be not only by one party to a marriage to the other but also by the parents of either party or by any other person to either party to the marriage or to any other person – giving or agreeing to give can be at any time – giving or receiving must be in connection with the marriage of the parties.
Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act – Soon Before Death – not synonymous to “immediately before” – must establish existence of “proximate and live link” between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand – death occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances
Dowry Death – Four pre-requisites –
(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.
Held – High Court fell into an error by holding that the demand of money for construction of a house cannot be treated as a dowry demand – Section 304-B of IPC introduced to combat the social evil of dowry demand – the trial Court correctly interpreted the demand for money raised by the respondents on the deceased for construction of a house as falling within the definition of the word “dowry” – the evidence brought on record shows that the deceased was pressurized to make such a request for money to her mother and uncle – upheld the conviction order of Trial Court – sentence imposed on them by trial Court of RI for life is reduced to RI for seven years – Appeal Partly Allowed.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
VERSUS
JOGENDRA & ANR.
