Stating that the “menace of dowry death is rising day-to-day”, the Supreme Courtroom Friday known as upon courts to interpret the law on the subject protecting in thoughts the legislative intent to curb the “social evil of bride burning and dowry demand” whereas additionally being cautious towards makes an attempt to rope in members of the family of the accused husband, although they might don’t have any lively function within the fee of the offence and should be residing at distant locations.
Tracing the historical past of the Dowry Prohibition Act and amendments to it, notably the 1096 amendments by which Part 304B was particularly launched within the IPC, as a stringent provision to curb the menace of dowry death within the nation, a bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justice Aniruddha Bose stated “contemplating the importance of such a laws, a strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted”.
Part 304B (1) defines ‘dowry death’ because the death of a lady brought on by burning or bodily accidents or happens in any other case than beneath regular circumstances, inside seven years of marriage, and it’s proven that quickly earlier than her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in reference to demand for dowry.
The courtroom was listening to an attraction towards an order of the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom upholding the conviction and sentencing of a person within the case of death of his spouse within the thirteenth month of their marriage. The accused took the defence that prosecution had failed to show there was any demand for dowry and even when assuming there was such a requirement, the state had not proved that it was made “quickly earlier than” or proximate to the death of the girl.
Writing for the bench, CJI Ramana stated that although usually the part is to be interpreted strictly on condition that it’s a felony statute, nonetheless, “the place strict interpretation leads to absurdity or goes towards the spirit of laws, the courts might, in acceptable cases, place reliance upon the real import of the phrases, taken of their typical sense to resolve such ambiguities”.
The bench stated that “there isn’t a denying that such social evil is persisting even as we speak. A research titled “International research on Murder: Gender-related killing of ladies and women”, printed by the United Nations Workplace on Medicine and Crime, highlighted that in 2018 feminine dowry deaths account for 40-50 p.c of all feminine homicides recorded yearly in India. The dismal reality is that from the interval 1999 to 2016, these figures have remained fixed. Actually, the newest information furnished by the Nationwide Crime Data Bureau signifies that in 2019 itself, 7115 cases had been registered beneath Part 304-B, IPC alone”.
Given the state of affairs, it’s “subsequently…protected to deduce that when the legislature used the phrases, ‘quickly earlier than’ they didn’t imply ‘instantly earlier than’. Reasonably, they left its dedication within the arms of the courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is sort of assorted…No straitjacket formulae can subsequently be laid down by this Courtroom to outline what precise the phrase ‘quickly earlier than’ entails”.
“Due to this fact, Courts ought to use their discretion to decide if the interval between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the sufferer would come throughout the time period ‘quickly earlier than’. What’s pivotal to the above dedication, is the institution of a ‘proximate and dwell hyperlink’ between the cruelty and the consequential death of the sufferer”, the bench added.
It additionally stated that the part “doesn’t take a pigeonhole strategy in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or unintentional, as was carried out earlier. The rationale…is due to the truth that death occurring “in any other case than beneath regular circumstances” can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or unintentional. Nonetheless, the Part 304-B, IPC endeavours to additionally handle these conditions whereby murders or suicide are masqueraded as accidents”.
Warning towards misuse of the law, the apex courtroom additionally stated that “undoubtedly…the menace of dowry death is rising day-to-day. Nonetheless, it’s also noticed that typically members of the family of the husband are roped in, regardless that they don’t have any lively function in fee of the offence and are residing at distant locations. In these cases, the Courtroom want to be cautious in its strategy”.
The SC whereas upholding his conviction and sentence beneath 304-B nonetheless acquitted him of the cost of abetting her suicide saying the prosecution had failed to set up that the death had occurred due to suicide.