Seeking financial assistance for meeting domestic expenses would constitute demand for dowry: SC

Ronita Biswas | National Law University, Orissa | 26th December 2019

Jatinder Kumar v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 1850 of 2010)

• Matter

The Appellant along with his mother and two brothers were convicted for commission of offenses under provisions of s. 304-B, s. 498-A and s. 306 of the IPC by the Trial Court. The offences were related to suicidal death of his wife, Meenakshi (hereinafter refereed as the victim). The Appellant was charged for subjecting the victim to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry coupled with cruelty during her stay in her matrimonial home. Charges were also framed for abetting the victim’s suicide.

• Appeal made to the High Court

However, the HC of Punjab & Haryana set aside the conviction of the Appellant under s. 306 of IPC. The Appellant’s mother and two brothers were also acquitted. The Appellant-convict made an appeal before the Supreme Court contending that there was no evidence of torture for demand of dowry against him.

• Respondent’s contention

The Respondents had contended that the Appellant along with his mother and his two brothers subjected the victim to various types of torture for not brining sufficient dowry. The demand for dowry was made to help the Appellant in respect of his clinic. In response to this, the father of the victim (PW-1) had given Rs.20, 000/- for the well-being of his daughter.

• Appellant’s contention

The Appellant in his statement made in response to his examination under s. 313 of the CrPC attributed suicide of the victim to depression on account of death of several relatives within a short spell of time.

The Appellant relied on the decision of Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2007 9 SCC 721) wherein the Court held a demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting domestic expenses cannot be termed as demand for dowry as defined in s. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Here, the Court laid down a principle-

the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential.

In the instant case, the Appellant was merely seeking financial assistance and the same would not constitute demand for dowry.

• Held

The Court held that the Appasaheb (supra) judgement had been rejected later in the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015 6 SCC 477). In the Rajinder Singh judgement the Court reinstated the correct law and declared that any money or property or valuable security demanded by any of the persons mentioned in s. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at or before or at any time after the marriage which is reasonably connected to the death of a married woman, would necessarily be in connection with or in relation to the marriage unless, the facts of a given case clearly and unequivocally point otherwise. The Court had also interpreted the term ‘soon’ of s. 304B of IPC. The Court ruled that the demand for dowry should not be stale but should be the continuing cause for the death of the married woman.

The Court also ruled that though several deaths had occurred in the victim’s family in a short span of time, there is no confirmation to suggest that the same had resulted into her depressive state of mind.

The Supreme Court confirmed to the decision of the HC and refused to interfere with the judgement. The Court found the Appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.