Skip navigation

Overview: LAW RELATED TO DOWRY DEATH IN INDIA

May. 31, 2020   •   Apurva Bhutani

INTRODUCTION-

Dowry is the act of giving the property owned by the bride’s parents upon the marriage of their daughter in the form of cash, gifts, jewellery etc. The act of giving dowry is a very deep-rooted issue in the Indian society and is proportionate with woman being subjected to cruelty, torture, harassment etc at the hands of the husband and the in -laws. So, whenever a married woman is killed or commits suicide because of the mental harassment or torture by the husband or the in-laws for the purposes of dowry or insufficient dowry, then, such a death is known to be as dowry death.

DOWRY DEATH AS UNDER SECTION 304, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860-

304B. Dowry death-

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

Essentials to prove guilt under section 304B-

1) Death of the woman;

2) Death cause by the means of burns or bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances (prosecution has to prove an unnatural death);

3) The occurrence should be within 7 years of marriage;

4) The woman must’ve been subjected to cruelty (as under section 498A) or harassment (mental or physical) by her husband or in-laws;

5) The cruelty should be in connection of the demand of dowry (the accused cannot be held guilty if this essential is not proved);

6) The woman must’ve been subjected to cruelty soon before her death.

PRESUMPTION AS TO DOWRY DEATH UNDER SECTION 113B, INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872-

113B. Presumption as to dowry death-

When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

COMBINED EFFECT-

The combined effect of both would be that if the prosecution is able to prove the essentials under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, then a presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is automatically raised. Usually, in criminal law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the accused person is guilty of an offence. But due to this presumption, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the accused.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE-

Circumstantial evidence plays a very important role in determining of the dowry death and various conclusions can be drawn on this regard. In case Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, it was held by the court of law that it would become very difficult for the prosecution to determine the guilt of a person if strict principles of circumstantial evidence will be used. The mere duty of the judge is not only to see whether no innocent is punished but also to ensure a man who is guilty of the crime does not escape from the law.

Taking in consideration Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1860, when a crime is committed behind the closed doors of a house, a burden on the inmates of the house also arises so as to give explanations so as to how the crime has been committed. Their liability won’t be absolved just by keeping quiet on the subject matter. In case Kundulabala Subramanyam v. State of A.P, three neighbours after hearing the cries of the deceased rushed to her house to witness that the deceased was lying on the ground covered in flames, when asked for help by the father of the accused, the father neglected it on the orders of the mother of the accused. It was later found that the mother-in- law of the deceased had poured the kerosene and the son had set the woman ablaze. They were held liable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian penal code. It was further held that the plea of innocence by the accused is inconsistent because they didn’t offer any help nor did they make any attempts to extinguish the fire, also, when the occurrence of has taken place in the house, so the onus to explain the circumstances leading to death also lies on the inmates of the house.

MISCELLANEOUS CASES-

Venugopal v. State of Karnataka-

The constant lust of dowry led to torture of the wife at the hands of the husband soon before she died, leading her to commit suicide. The husband was held liable under section 304B for creating a situation where the wife had to commit suicide.

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana-

It was held by the curt that it is not necessary that there should be an agreement in place for dowry. The court reached to this conclusion as there were persistent demands of dowry made from the bride even after marriage and hence it would come within the meaning and scope of Section 304B, IPC.

FAQs

1) Is a person liable for demand of dowry and cruelty which does not lead to dowry death?

Ans. Yes, a person will be held liable under Section 498A, IPC, the husband as well as the in-laws can be held liable.

[The author, Rishi Nandy is a 2nd year law student at Vivekanand Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU]


  • Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 CrLJ 20 SC
  • Kundulabala Subramanyam v. State of A.P, (1993) 2 SCC 684
  • Venugopal v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1999 SC 14
  • Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 958

Liked the article ?
Share this: