Dowry Death

Many women have been killed by their husbands or relatives out of greed for more dowry. To deal with this problem, the offence of dowry death was included in the IPC. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines dowry, it means property or valuable security give or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. Dower or Mehr is not dowry under Muslim Personal law. Gifts that are given to a woman during her marriage are not dowry. They are her own personal property and she has an absolute right over them. Dowry need not be directly given. For example, property given in someone else’s name or given by someone who is not a woman’s parent or her husband’s parents is still considered as Dowry. An agreement to give property may count as dowry even if has been negotiated between people who are not related to her.
As the earlier law was not sufficient to check dowry death, the legislature introduced stringent provisions under the Section 304B, IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act in 1986. These provisions were introduced so that the person committing such inhuman crimes on married woman could not escape liability, as evidence of a direct nature is not readily available.
The primary requirements for finding the accused guilty of an offence under S.304B, IPC, are that the death of the deceased was caused by burns of bodily injuries, which occur otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage and that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused for or in connection with a demand for money. Unless there is evidence of dowry demand, S304B cannot be attracted.
The concept of cruelty or harassment has to be taken from the explanation to S. 498A IPC. Cruelty or harassment need not be physical. Even mental torture would in the facts and circumstances of a given case amount to cruelty or harassment under S. 498A IPC. The term ‘willful conduct’ means conduct willfully done; this may be inferred by direct or indirect evidence. In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the court held that taunting the woman for not bringing dowry and calling her ugly, amounts to mental torture. Further, if there is a quarrel a day before her death, this would constitute willful act of cruelty both within the meaning of S. 498A and 304B, IPC.
Dowry deaths occur within the four walls of the house, therefore the concept of deemed ‘dowry death’ was introduced by the 1983 amendment. In order to invoke the legal presumption under S. 113B of the Evidence Act, it is necessary to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Further, the presumption under Ss. 113B and 304B only apply if the offence takes place within seven years of marriage. The sections read in conjunction shift the burden of proof from the prosecution on the husband or his relatives of the offence. This is a departure from the normal rule of evidence and was introduced to strengthen the hands of the prosecution. The provisions of S. 113B is mandatory in nature. In State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, the court opines that S. 113B could be applied retrospectively as it is procedural in nature. There has to be a proximity between the incident of cruelty or harassment and the offence for the presumption of S. 113B to apply.
There can be no direct evidence available for the offence of dowry death, therefore the courts must rely upon circumstantial evidence and infer from the material available. The Court in C.V. Govindappa v. State of Karnataka held that the conduct of the husband in not trying to put out the flames and not taking her to hospital will be taken as circumstance against the husband. It is also necessary to establish that cruelty or harassment meted out to the woman was on account of the failure on her part to meet the dowry demands. Along with circumstantial evidence, the courts also rely upon the dying declaration of the deceased. The statement of the deceased regarding circumstances of the transaction, which resulted in her death, would be relevant under S. 32(1) of the Evidence Act.
Motive for murder may or may not exist but in dowry deaths, it is inherent. The courts only have to examine as to who translated it into action, as motive for dowry is not of the individual but that of the family.
Sections 304B and 498A, IPC are mutually exclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. Under S. 304B, it is dowry death within the time period of seven years. There is no time limit within which the offence would have to be committed to attract the provision of S. 498A, IPC. Further, S. 498A deals with the offence of cruelty by the husband and his relatives. There is nothing in the section that excludes the application of S. 302, if S. 304B applies. Where the dowry death takes place after seven years of marriage, then the other provisions of IPC are applicable.
The offence under S. 304B can be tried by the sessions court and it is a cognizable offence. Where the complaints reveals a case of continuing offence of maltreatment and humiliation in various cities then S. 178(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code applies. Where the charge is only under one section but the ingredients of another offence are fulfilled, the court in exercise of its inherent powers under Art. 142 of the Constitution can give appropriate orders in the interest of justice.
Unlike S. 498A, S. 304B, IPC gives no space to be used in situations where the violence is not linked to dowry. Since no record is maintained and no complaints are made at the time of meeting the dowry demands while the girl is alive, it is extremely difficult to prove a dowry death under this section. The section also presumes that women are harassed for dowry only within the first seven years of marriage. Overall, this section is not likely to benefit women to deal with domestic violence. The other sections of the IPC which have been used in cases of wife murder are S. 302- punishment for murder and S. 306 abetment to suicide.

[Inputs: Premjit Elangbam,DHR, LLM [Advocate]