Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court

“Demand Unconnected with Marriage Does Not Qualify as Dowry Under Section 304B” – In a significant ruling Supreme Court of India clarified the legal contours of what constitutes "dowry" under Section 304B of the IPC, holding that a demand for gold ornaments made during a post-childbirth ritual (‘chhoochhak’) does not constitute a dowry demand. The bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 304B, while upholding the conviction under Section 498A IPC for cruelty.

The Court observed that although the wife and infant child were tragically found dead in a well, the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged demand for gold ring and chain was made in connection with the marriage—a key statutory ingredient for dowry death under Section 304B.

“Demand Must Be in Connection With Marriage, Not Post-Marriage Rituals” – Court Applies Satvir Singh Precedent

Central to the judgment was the Court’s reliance on the landmark decision in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 8 SCC 633, particularly paragraph 21, which restricts the meaning of dowry under Section 304B to property or valuable security given "in connection with the marriage" of the parties.

The Court held:

“The demand made for gold ornaments at the time of the Chhoochhak ceremony cannot be considered to be a dowry demand. It could have been a demand which was made not in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but at the time of the birth of the child.” [Para 7.1]

Therefore, the conviction under Section 304B IPC was deemed unsustainable and was accordingly set aside.

Background: Death of Wife and Infant, Alleged Harassment Over Gold Demand

The appellant, Baboo Khan, had married the deceased, Khatoon, in November 1986. After the birth of their male child in May 1988, a customary ceremony called ‘chhoochhak’ was held. The prosecution alleged that during this event, the appellant demanded a gold ring and chain, and when the demand was not fulfilled, he harassed and tortured the deceased, leading her to commit suicide along with her child by jumping into a well on 24 November 1988.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, awarding seven years' imprisonment under Section 304B and one year under Section 498A. The Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

On Cruelty: Section 498A Conviction Sustained

Despite setting aside the conviction under Section 304B, the Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court under Section 498A, stating:

“We find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt, the offences which are delineated under the said Section.” [Para 7.3]

The Court noted consistent evidence from prosecution witnesses that the deceased was ill-treated, not allowed to meet her parents, and was heard crying at night, indicating persistent cruelty by the husband.

Sentence Already Undergone – No Further Incarceration Ordered

Importantly, the Court found that the appellant had already undergone more imprisonment (approximately 1.5 years) than the one-year sentence imposed under Section 498A IPC. Since the fine of Rs. 100/- had already been paid, and bail was granted by the Supreme Court in 2016, the Court held:

“It is not just and proper to impose any further sentence on the appellant herein. Consequently, the appellant’s conviction under Section 304B IPC is set aside but the conviction under Section 498A IPC is sustained.” [Para 8]

Court Rejects State’s Argument Linking Gold Demand to Dowry

The State of Rajasthan, represented by Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, contended that the demand for gold during the ‘chhoochhak’ ceremony should be construed as dowry, arguing that the deceased’s suicide was linked to this harassment. However, the Court decisively rejected this contention, holding that not every post-marriage demand qualifies as dowry.

“Demands made not in connection with the marriage but at a later stage cannot fall within the statutory definition of dowry for the purpose of Section 304B.”

This ruling not only reinforces the strict interpretation of the term “dowry” under criminal law but also ensures that convictions under Section 304B IPC are not mechanically sustained in the absence of specific evidence showing that the demand was connected to the marriage.

The judgment offers significant jurisprudential clarity on a frequently misapplied provision and ensures that criminal liability under Section 304B is not imposed without satisfying the statutory ingredients, particularly when the tragic outcome involves suicide but the evidence falls short of proving a direct link to a dowry demand made in connection with marriage.

Date of Decision: 27 November 2025