STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.Whether the accused are guilty of causing cruelty and harassment to Dhanalaxmi under
Section 498A of IPC?

2. Whether Vishnu Pandey is guilty of causing dowry death to Dhanalaxmi under Section
304B of IPC?

3. Whether Rahul, Jayesh, Vishnu Pandey are guilty of causing rape to Dhanalaxmi under
Section 376 of IPC?

4. Whether Laxmi and Vishnu Pandey are guilty of causing murder to Dhanalaxmi under
Section 302 of IPC?

5. How the violence against women is handled in international perspective?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Marriages are made in heaven, is an adage. A bride leaves the parental home to the
matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet memories there, with a hope that she will see a new
world full of love in her grooms house. She leaves behind not only her memories, but also
her surname, gotra and maidenhood. She expects not only to be a daughter-in-law, but a
daughter in fact.The cruelty and harassement she faces the matrimonial home makes her
weak and suttle. Alas! The alarming rise in the number of cases involving harassment to the
newly wed girls for dowry shatters the dreams. In-laws are characterized to be out-laws for
perpetrating terrorism which destroys the matrimonial home. The terrorist is dowry, and it is
spreading tentacles in every possible direction.

ISSUE:1

Whether the accused are guilty of causing cruelty and harassment to Dhanalaxmi under
Section 498A of IPC?

This particular issue talks about the cruelty faced my the victim in the matrimonial home ,and
the justification of the ingredients under Section 498A of IPC

CRUELTY- Cruelty is indifference to suffering, and even pleasure in inflicting

it. Sadism can also be related to this form of action or concept. Cruel ways of inflicting
suffering may involve violence, but affirmative violence is not necessary for an act to be
cruel. 1

OBJECT:
1 8th edition ,oxford dictionary
The object is to punish a husband and his relatives who torture and harass the wife with a
view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demands or to drive her
to commit suicide. To make the offence deterrent sec. 498A prescribes a sentence of 3yrs and
also a fine for the husband or the relatives who subject her to cruelty.

Cruelty has two types. One is physical cruelty while the other is mental cruelty. Mental
cruelty is again very hard to define for it is the most subjective element in the definition of
cruelty. Still the courts have tried to explain it on the basis of the circumstances available.
The definition of mental cruelty in Blacks Law Dictionary is from the basis of divorce. It
states, one spouses course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such
anguish that it endangers the life, physical health or mental health of the other spouse.2

The courts while dealing with mental cruelty decided to consider every aspect from a family
oriented point of view. In another landmark case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur3 , mental
cruelty was addressed in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to
which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Mental
cruelty falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong.

The landmark case being Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy and in sukumar mukherjee
4
case. In this case, the learned Chief Justice observed that, The word cruelty has not been
defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct
or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and
obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty
may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the court will have no
problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem
presents difficulty.

This judgement clearly explains that cruelty depends on the human behaviour and human
conduct. Here in the facts, it is mentioned that Mrs. Sharda was tortured and physically
beaten and mentally hurt , which happened due the human behaviour, and there is no
circumstantial evidence which proves that Mrs. Sharda had an illicit relationship and obliged
to the customs of the family. This act of cruelty was done by Goyals family voluntarily
which ended up taking away Mrs. Sharda Goyals life.

INGREDIENTS OF THE CRUELTY

2 Bryan A.Gaener, Blacks Law Dictionary
3 MANU/SC/1023/2004
4 AIR 1988 SC 121
 1. That the woman was married.
2. That she was subjected to cruelty
3. Cruelty was shown by either husband of the woman or by the relatives of the husband.

EXPLANATION

a) Cruelty is any wilful conduct which

(i) Drives the woman to commit suicide or
(ii) To cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental Prem
Prakash Ruban v. Sarla Ruban or physical)
b) Harassment of the woman
(i) With a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security

HARASSMENT-
To subject (another) to hostile or prejudicial remarks or actions; pressure or intimidate.5

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005

UNDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005,The term cruelty and harassment is explained
under

Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 states that what constitutes domestic violence
according to which domestic violence shall include: -
(a) Threats to health, safety, life etc, whether mental or physical, including physical abuse,
sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) Harassment through any forms such as harms, injuries to the aggrieved person by
coercing her or any other person related to any unlawful demand for dowry or other property
or valuable security; or
(c) Otherwise injuring or causing harm, through physical or mental means to the aggrieved
person.6

Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand7

the Supreme Court observed that a serious relook of the provision is warranted by the
Legislature. The Court said: It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions
of the incidents are reflected in a large number of complaints. The Court took note of the
common tendency to implicate husband and all his immediate relations. The Supreme Court
directed the Registry to send a copy of judgment to the Law Commission and Union Law
Secretary so that appropriate steps may be taken in the larger interests of society.

INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

5 8th edition oxford dictionary

6 Domestic violence act,2005
7 (supra) decided in 2010,
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to crueltyWhoever,
being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, cruelty means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)
of woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.8

243 LAW COMMISSION REPORT

S.498A was introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from being subjected to
cruelty by the husband or his relatives. A punishment extending to 3 years and fine has been
prescribed. The expression cruelty has been defined in wide terms so as to include
inflicting physical or mental harm to the body or health of the woman and indulging in acts of
harassment with a view to coerce her or her relations to meet any unlawful demand for any 2
property or valuable security. Harassment for dowry falls within the sweep of latter limb of
the section. Creating a situation driving the woman to commit
suicide is also one of the ingredients of cruelty. The offence under s.498A is
cognizable, non-compoundable and non-bailable. The section is extracted
below:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to crueltyWhoever, being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also
be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, cruelty means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)
of woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing
her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
1.3 Several enactments and provisions have been brought on the statute book during the last
two or three decades to address the concerns of liberty, dignity and equal respect for women
founded on the community perception that women suffer violence or deprived of their
constitutional rights owing to several social and cultural factors. Meaningful debates and
persuasions have led to these enactments. The insertion of Section 498A IPC is one such

8IPC,1860(SECTION 498A)
move and it penalizes offensive conduct of the husband and his relatives towards the married
woman. The provision together with allied provisions in Cr.P.C. are so designed as to impart
an element of deterrence. In course of time, a spate of 3 reports of misuse of the
section by means of false / exaggerated allegations and implication of several
relatives of the husband have been pouring in. Though there are widespread
complaints and even the judiciary has taken cognizance of large scale misuse, there
is no reliable data based on empirical study as regards the extent of the alleged
misuse. There are different versions about it and the percentage of misuse given by
them is based on their experience or ipse dixit, rather than ground level study. 9
SUPREME COURT CASES ON 498A
1. Satyajit Banerjee and others v. State of West Bengal and others
10
(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
Date of Judgment : 23/11/2004
Indian Penal Code, ss. 498A, 306 - Trial Court acquitted accused but High Court set
aside acquittal and directed a de novo trial - Whether High Court right in directing
examination of additional witnesses under s. 311 in revision?; whether direction of High
Court to trial court to record further evidence and take a 'fresh decision from stage one'
is without jurisdiction? - Held, direction for retrial should not be made in all or every
case where acquittal of accused is for want of adequate or reliable evidence - Even if a
retrial is directed in exercise of revisional powers by High Court, evidence already
recorded at initial trial cannot be erased or wiped out from record of case - Trial Judge
has to decide case on basis of evidence already on record and additional evidence which
would be recorded on retrial - Clarified and reiterate that trial Judge, after retrial, shall
take a decision on basis of entire evidence on record and strictly in accordance with
law....

2. Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others

11
(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
Date of Judgment : 5/11/2004
Quashing of criminal complaint - Alleging offences under ss. 498A, 323 and 506 IPC,
and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Quashing on ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction - Whether quashing of criminal complaint sustainable? - Held, that appellant
having received relief she wanted without contest on basis of terms of compromise,
cannot now accept argument of appellant - Conduct of appellant indicates that criminal
complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by wife only to harass respondents - It
would be an abuse of process of court if criminal proceedings from which this appeal
arises is allowed to continue....

3. Rajkumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh12

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
Date of Judgment : 14/9/2004
Indian Penal Code. 1860, s.302 - duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused
had or necessarily would have remained at the house around the time when the attack
took place - barring the evidence of PW8 who claimed to have seen the accused at 9.00
a.m. at his house, there is no other evidence to establish the presence of the accused in
9 243RD LAW COMMISSION REPORT,2012
10MANU/SC/0997/2004 : (2005) 1 SCC 115
11 JT 2004 (10) SC 475
12(2014) 5 SCC 353
the house proximate to the time of occurrence - vital link in this behalf is missing in the
case - no motive has been proved or seriously suggested for inflicting fatal injuries on
the pregnant wife whom the accused married a year back - in a case based on
circumstantial evidence, this factor also should be kept in view - no reason to set aside
findings of trial court - appeal allowed....

4. Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and

another13 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
Date of Judgment : 17/8/2004
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 482 - Prayer for quashing proceedings - Single
Judge of the Madras High Court rejected prayer - Whether judgment of Single Judge
sustainable? - Held, in factual scenario disclosed by complainant in complaint petition,
inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore,
concerned magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with matter - Proceedings are quashed....

5. Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana (SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA)
Date of Judgment : 10/8/2004
Indian Penal Code, ss. 304B, 498A - Conviction - Appeal against conviction -
Whether conviction sustainable? - Held in absence of any evidence to show that
victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before death, no offence under s.
304B is made out - Absolutely no evidence of coercion, conviction under s. 498A
becomes unwarranted - Convictions and sentences of appellant set aside...

6. Sakatar Singh and Others v. State of Haryana

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
Date of Judgment : 13/4/2004
IPC, ss.306, 498A r/w s.34 - Prosecution has not established allegation of demand -
Based on erroneous inferences drawn on unproved facts and placing reliance on
statements of interested witnesses trial court came to a wrong conclusion as to guilt of
accused persons - High Court failed to notice its legal responsibility of discussing
evidence independently and recording its findings on basis of such independent
assessment of its own, because it is first court of appeal on facts - Appeal allowed...

7. The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa and Another

14
(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
Date of Judgment : 17/3/2004
IPC, 1860, ss. 304 B and 498 A and IEA, 1872, s. 113 B - conjoint reading shows that
there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to
cruelty or harassment - prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or
accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the 'death occurring otherwise
than in normal circumstances' - _expression 'soon before' is very relevant - prosecution

13 [(2004) SCC (Cri.) 2134

14 [(2004) 4 SCC 470].

is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and
only in that case presumption operates -'Soon before' is a relative term and it would
depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down
as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence - hazardous to
indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for
the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
- held on facts that in view of the death occurring within the very few
months of the marriage, and the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4 and 6 that
shortly before the deceased committed suicide, demand of dowry was
made, the plea in untenable. The accusations clearly stand established
so far as A-1, respondent no.1 is concerned. So far as accused A-3 is
concerned, there is no evidence that he ever made any demand of
dowry -- custodial sentence of 7 years would meet the end of justice
for respondent no.1 - appeal partly allowed....

8. Hans Raj v. State of Haryana15 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Date of Judgment : 26/2/2004
[A] Advocates & Judges - judgments of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the
High Court - constrained to observe that the High Court while disposing of the appeal
did not even apply its mind to the facts of the case - disturbing feature noticed by us is
that the High Court merely repeated paragraphs after paragraphs from the judgment of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge as if those conclusions were its own, reached on
an appreciation of the evidence on record many of the paragraphs are word from
word borrowed from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge without
acknowledging that fact - practice deprecated. [B] Deceased committing suicide
within seven years of marriage - held, under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence
Act - prosecution has first to establish that the woman concerned committed suicide
within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband
(in this case) had subjected her tocruelty - even if these facts are established the
Court is not bound to presume that the suicide had been abetted by her husband -
section gives a discretion to the Court to raise such a presumption, having regard to
all the other circumstances of the case - allegation is of cruelty, nature of cruelty to
which the woman was subjected, having regard to the meaning of word cruelty in
Section 498-A I.P.C. to be considered - no automatic presumption that the suicide
had been abetted by her husband - held on facts, offence under s.306 not made out -
conviction under s.498A ordered....

9. Nallam Veera Stayanandam and Others v. Public Prosecutor, High

Court of Andhra Pradesh 16(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
Date of Judgment : 24/2/2004
Two dying declarations - if the first is accepted all other evidence led by the prosecution
would not help the prosecution to establish a case under section 304B IPC because of
the fact that even a married woman harassed by demand for dowry may meet with an
accident and suffer a death which is unrelated to such harassment - it is for the defence
to satisfy the court that irrespective of the prosecution case in regard to the dowry
demand and harassment, the death of the deceased has not occurred because of that and

15 (2004) 12 SCC 257.

16 [2004] RD-SC 117
the same resulted from a cause totally alien to such dowry demand or harassment -
deceased died within 3 years of her marriage - presumption under section 113B of the
Evidence Act is available to the prosecution, - first dying declaration accepted -
presumption stands rebutted - unless the prosecution is able to establish that the cause of
death was not accidental by evidence other than the dying declarations, the prosecution
case under section 304B IPC as against the appellants must fail - on facts convicted
under s.498A, IPC....

10. Rishi Anand and another v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and others
17
(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
Date of Judgment : 20/3/2002
The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., ought to have
quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant as there were no allegations,
much less of specific nature, even to remotely connect the appellant with the alleged
offence under Section 406 IPC.

11. Baburam v. State of Madhya Pradesh18 (SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA) Date of Judgment : 29/1/2002
It is extremely dangerous to rely upon the prosecution evidence to base a conviction
against the appellant when the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the
appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and when there is no motive whatsoever for
the appellant to have caused the death or abetted the suicide of the deceased because
she failed to bring in sufficient dowry....

12. Satvir Singh and otherswith Tejinder Pal Kaur v. State of Punjab
and another19 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
Date of Judgment : 27/9/2001
Under Section 304 B, it is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the
woman with a demand for dowry at some time, but it should have happened .

13. G. Raj Mallaiah and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh20

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
Date of Judgment : 27/4/1995
JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S. Rajendra Babu, J. Leave granted. The appellants
were chargesheeted for offences arising under Section 304 I.P.C. and Sect ion 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act read with section 498A, I.P.C. The allegation made in ...

17 (2002) 4 SCC 72
18 AIR 1970 SC 706
19 AIR 2001 SC 2828: 2001 Cr LJ 4625: (2001) 8 SCC 633
20 1998 IVAD SC 124, AIR 1998 SC 2315
ISSUE:2

Whether Vishnu Pandey is guilty of causing dowry death to Dhanalaxmi under Section
304B of IPC?

This issue talks whether dhanalaxmi is subjected to cruelty in connection with DOWRY
DEATH: SOON BEFORE HER DEATH and explaining the terms in deatil,

Joshinder Yadav v. State of Bihar(2014) 4 SCC 42

HELD: That cruelty and harassment by husband and his relatives eventually leading to death
of the bride even the viscera report was not obtained the husband five of his relatives were
charged under 498A and 304B of IPC concurrently .

CASE: K. PREMA S RAO AND ORS V. YARDHLA SRINIVASA RAO AND ORS. SC
HELD: That if charge under sec 498A is fulfilled 304B and 498A run concurrently.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT,200521

Section 2(a): aggrieved person means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of
domestic violence by the respondent;

Section 2(f): domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or
have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by
consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are
family members living together as a joint family;

Section 2(g): domestic violence has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3;

Section 2(h): dowry shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961);

Section 2(s): shared household means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at
any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and
includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person
and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the
aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or
equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the

21 Act no.43 of 2005 w.e.f 13th September 2005

respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has
any right, title or interest in the shared household.

Section 3: Definition of domestic violence.For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or
commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it

(a)harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or
physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse,
sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or
any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property
or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any
conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Explanation I.For the purposes of this section,

(i) physical abuse means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily
pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the
aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;

(ii) sexual abuse includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades
or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;

(iii) verbal and emotional abuse includes

(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to
not having a child or a male child; and

(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is
interested.

(iv) economic abuse includes

(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is
entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or
which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household
necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or
separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household
and maintenance;

(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable,
valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved
person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may
be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other
property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and

(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved
person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the
shared household. Explanation II.For the purpose of determining whether any act,
omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes domestic violence under
this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.

CASE: SARASWATHY VS. BABU

BENCH : Division

HELD : Women and children were primary beneficiaries of the prohibition of domestic
violence act 2005. Both are empowered to file under this act.

According to law commission report 243 the cruelty caused to women line with 498A of IPC
is a cognizable and compoundable offence capable of being known /acknowledge.

CASE : RAMGOPAL &ANR. V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 22

BENCH: Two judge bench

The act is a complementary law and is quite apposite. The act has been devised to elaborate
the machinery of 498A.

SITUATIONS : the two essentials of 498A has to be satisfied

CASE LAWS:

1. Mr. Mahesh Machapalli v. BSNL, Hyderabad on 6 May, 2009

BENCH:Single

2. Pankaj Verma v. Preeti Verma on 31 August, 2013

BENCH:Single

22 (2010) 10 SCC 673

3. P. Rajkumar v. Mrs. Yoga @ Yogalakshmi on 6 March, 2015

BENCH:Single

4. Shabnam Khatoon v. Manobbar Alam & Ors. Page No.1Of 22 on 16 February, 2013

BENCH: Single

5. Shri Sanjay Gupta v. Also At: on 1 April, 2014

BENCH:Single

6. Smt. Rekha Sharma v. Shri. Atul Vats (Husband) on 31 January, 2015

BENCH:Single

In all the above cases it was held that where any dowry harassment has been proved u/s 304B
and 498A of IPC, the Prohibition of Domestic Violence Against Women Act is automatically
invoked as this Act is apposite to the IPC as it gives more strength and widens the scope for
protection of women.

DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 196123

Definition of dowry'. In this Act, dowry means any property or valuable security given
or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the
marriage or to any other person,
at or before 1 [or any time after the marriage] 2 [in connection with the marriage of the said
parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) applies. 3 [***] Explanation II. The expression valuable security
has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

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

23 THE DOWRY PROHIBITION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1986

connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death
and such husband or relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation For the purposes of this sub section, dowry shall have the same
meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(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.

COMMENTS

(i) After the marriage demand for valuable presents by the husband from the wifes
parents and the suicide of the wife by the constant harassment does not amount to
dowry death; Arjun Dhondiba Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 AIHC 273.

(ii) Section 304-B is creating a substantive offence and is not merely a provision
effecting a change in the procedure for the trail of a pre-existing substantive offence.
Section 304-B is prospective in nature, death taking place before section 304-B came
into force; Bhoora Singh v. State, 1993 Cri. LJ 2636 All.

(iii) Three essential ingredients are to be established before the offences under
section 304-B can be made punishable. They are

(a) That there is a demand of dowry and harassment by the accused,

(b) That the deceased had died,

(c) That the death is under unnatural circumstances. Since there was demand for
dowry and harassment and death within 7 years of marriage, the other things
automatically follow and offence under section 304-B is proved; Vemuri
Venkateshwara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1992 Cri. LJ. 563 A.P. See also
Shanti v. State of Haryana, 1 (1991) DMC 187 SC.

(iv) Though the death of the deceased within 7 years of marriage tool place by burns,
section 304-B was held not attracted as there was nothing to show that the deceased
before her death was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry by her husband or
relative; Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, II (1992) DMC 486 M.P.

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-

Whoever, being the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, subject such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation For the purpose of this section cruelty means

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman, or

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her
or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to
meet such demand.

COMMENTS

In the absence of any specific allegations of cruelty against the petitioners there is no
offence under section 498-A. the complainant had also started living with the
petitioner thereby condoning the acts of cruelty; Sukhbir Jain v. State, 1994 (1) CC
cases 609 (HC) Del.

(ii) The husband and in-laws subjected the wife the cruelty for bringing insufficient
dowry and finally burnt her down, thereby inviting a sentence of three years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- for an offence committed under section 498-A
of Indian Penal Code; Bhoora Singh v. State, 1993 Cri. LJ 2636 All.

(iii) Section 498-a contemplates the offence of subjecting a woman to cruelty by the
husband or relatives of the husband. As the applicants are not relatives of the
husband rather they are co-villagers consequently summoning them for offence
under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code amounts to abuse of process of court;
Dukhi Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1993 Cri. LJ 2539 (All).

(iv) Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is not ultra vires of articles 14, 19, 21, 22 of
constitution and do not contravene these provisions; Indrawati v. Union of India, I
(1991) DMC 117 (DB) (All).

(v) The newly wed daughter-in-law was abused by her mother-in-law of ill-luck when
the daughter-in-law had an abortion, the husband assaulted her on various occasions
that bridal presents brought by her were of inferior quality, thereby treating her with
cruelty as defined in section 498-A of Indian Penal Code driving her to commit
suicide; State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, 1994 Cri. LJ 2104 SC.
Indian Evidence Act, 187224

113B. Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a person has
committed by dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death
such woman had 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.

Explanation For the purpose of this section dowry death shall have the same
meaning as in section, 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

PRESUMPTION AS TO DOWRY DEATH

When the question is whether a person has committed dowry death of a woman and it is
shown that soon before her death such woman had 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.
Applicability
In the case of (Vadde Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh)25
Bench: single
The court held that :
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code would be applicable if cruelty or harassment was
inflicted by the husband on any of his relative for, or in connection with demand for dowry,
immediately preceding the death by bodily injury or by burning (abnormal circumstances)
within seven years of the marriage. In such circumstances the husband or the relative, as the
case may be, will be deemed to have caused her death and will be liable to punishment
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS
CASE : Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar26
BENCH: division
(i) Suspicious or unnatural death:
CASE: Bhateri Devi Anr. v. State of Delhi
BENCH: Single
CASE: Shiv kumar v. State
BENCH: Division
CASE: Bhim Singh &Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand

24 EVIDENCE ACT,1872
25 1990 CrLJ 1666
26 [2006] 10 SCC 115; AIR 2006 SC 2855
 BENCH: Divisional
(ii) Bodily injuries
CASE: Satvir Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2828; (2001) 8 SCC 633)

BENCH: K.T. Thomas, SN Variava

(iii) Done by husband or relatives of the husband

CASE: Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1994 Cri LJ 1684

BENCH: Division

(iv) Within 7 years of marriage

CASE: Biswajit Halder (a) Babu Halder & ors v. State of West Bengal
BENCH: Division
HELD:"dowry means any demand of money or valuable securities within 7 years of
marriage causing her death."
(v) Soon before her death
CASE: Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors
BENCH: Division
Held: "soon before death is a relative term and it means she was subjected to cruelty and
harassment by her husband and relatives for and in connection with dowry."
Soon before death maybe a few hours, few days or even few weeks before her death or from
a period since the marriage till her death for a continuous period within 7 years of marriage
Expression soon before her death: meaning
CASE: Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu27

BENCH: Division

The expression soon before her death used in the substantive section 304B, I.P.C. and
section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity text. No definite
period has been indicated and the expression soon before her death is not defined. The
determination of the period which can come within the term soon before is left to be
determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Soon before
death maybe a few hours, few days or even few weeks before her death or from a period
since the marriage till her death for a continuous period within 7 years of marriage.

27 AIR 2003 SC 3828

CASE: Hemchand v. State of Haryana 28
BENCH: Division
Held: "The Supreme Court has held that in cases where all the elements of Section 304B are
in line with the facts of the case, the Court shall presume."
Shall presume: Whenever it is directed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the Court shall
presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.
May presume: "May presume."-Whenever it is provided by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it
is disproved, or may call for proof of it.
In this case, Mr. Suresh and Ms. Sharda got married on 17.7.2012. And dowry was paid by
Vikram Gupta to Dinesh Goyal and family upon claims made by them in order to ensure that
his daughter would live happily in her matrimonial home. However, Mrs. Sharda was not
treated properly by the Goyal family from the time she entered their house. They made
further claims for dowry and tortured Sharda physically and mentally. They demanded a
further dowry of Rs. 1 crore fixed deposit and a Mercedes Benz.
In Sathyanarayanan Tiwari (a) Jolly & Anr v. State of U.P a Maruti car was demanded as
dowry and when the claims were not meted out, they killed the wife. The court held that even
the first claim of dowry is punishable.
As mention above all the ingredients of dowry death has been fulfilled. Mrs. Sharda Goyal
has died a suspicious death within 7yrs of marriage and also suffered bodily injuries and was
subjected to cruelty by all the members of her marital family soon before her death as stated
in the facts and thus her death is a clear case of offence u/s 304B.
Section 304B imposes statutory obligation on a court to presume that the accused committed
the dowry death when the prosecution proves that:
1. Death of his wife has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within
7yrs of her marriage and
2. Soon before her death she was subjected cruelty or harassment by her husband or his
relatives in connection with demand of dowry.

CASE: Soni Devibhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors 29

28 1994 (6) SCC 727

29 1991 (4) SCC 298

BENCH: Two judge bench
Supreme Court has held the offenders of the death always tries to give an impression that to
be a suicidal or accidental death. But it is always the bride who meets with the accidental
while cooking or doing household work. In all cases of suspicion the court shall presume and
analyse the factual evidences to check elements of section 304B for homicide ie. dowry
death.
Presumption: Applicability
The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials:
(1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry
death of a woman.
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.