‘Inhumane to jail’: Chhattisgarh High Court upholds dowry death conviction but spares 87-year-old from prison

Case: ‘Victim missing, dowry allegations’

• The victim and her daughter went missing in November 2002.
• Subsequently, the husband lodged an FIR stating that his wife, along with his daughter, had left the house without informing anybody, and despite searching for them, he failed to find them.
• The father of the victim, however, alleged that he had asked his son-in-law to search for his daughter, but he refused to do so, and the victim was not traced for 14 days.

• The victim’s father also expressed apprehension that the in-laws and husband might have committed some offence against his daughter.
• It was also claimed in the complaint filed by the victim’s father that, prior to the incident, the victim’s father-in-law had demanded Rs 12,000 from him and Rs 1 lakh from his elder son over the phone.
• The victim’s father further alleged that his daughter was compelled to take her own life as she was subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry.
• It was also claimed that the victim’s husband and father-in-law used to physically assault and harass her in a drunken state in connection with the demand for dowry.
• The trial court convicted and imposed rigorous imprisonment of 10 years on both the accused in its order of 2005.
• The victim’s husband and father-in-law approached the high court to challenge the conviction order.

Observation: Dowry demand, unusual death

• The victim married one of the accused and was residing in her matrimonial home. She passed away within 3-4 years of marriage.
• The statements of the witnesses have consistently confirmed the demand of Rs 1 lakh and that the victim was subjected to torture for the demand of money.
• The husband was unemployed even after being educated and was dependent upon the income of his parents. This leads to affirming the demand of Rs 1 lakh as dowry.
• The victim was continuously subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons in connection with the demand for money.

• The victim’s death is an unnatural death of a married woman, which took place within a few years of her marriage.
• The presumption of dowry death is made out as the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused in connection with the demand for dowry.
• There is a link between the cruelty and harassment faced by the victim and her death.
• The order of conviction of the father-in-law was upheld, but no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to prison, considering his age of 87 years.
• The husband, who is on bail, was directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of eight weeks to serve the remaining jail sentence.
• Dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or to any other person.
• The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties.

Husband, father-in-law’s submission

• Appearing for the father and the husband, senior advocate N K Shukla submitted that there is doubt concerning the cause of the death of the victim, and it is not clear whether the victim killed herself or had an accident.
• He submitted that the state is unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt since there is no evidence placed on record to prove that the accused has instigated the victim to commit suicide.
• Shukla further submitted that the state is unable to establish that, soon before the death of the victim, she was subjected to harassment to fulfill the requirement of dowry death and to draw a presumption that the victim died within 7 years of marriage in suspicious circumstances.
• He also pointed out that the state did not prove that there were dowry demands.
• Shukla also highlighted the good intention of the victim’s husband by pointing out that he himself lodged the missing persons report and was searching for his wife and daughter.
• He also mentioned that there are contradictions and omissions in the statements recorded before the police, as well as in the court statement.

Beyond reasonable doubt: State’s submission

• State’s representative Deputy Advocate General Sanjeev Pandey supported the trial court’s order of conviction and would submit that the state has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt since the victim’s father has narrated the earlier incident of dowry demands clearly.
• He would further submit that there is no dispute that the marriage was solemnised 3-4 years before the death of the victim, and she died in abnormal circumstances within 7 years of marriage.
• It is also submitted that the state has proved that soon before the victim’s death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband as well as the relative of her husband in connection with the demand of dowry.