Supreme Court Reverses Acquittal in Dowry Death Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jogendra & Anr. (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 11 January 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 27
Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, J, Hima Kohli, J. (authored the judgment). This was a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India.

Can a demand for money to construct a house be considered dowry? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a dowry death case, overturning a High Court acquittal. The core issue revolved around whether the demand for money for constructing a house, made by the husband and father-in-law, constitutes dowry under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This judgment clarifies the scope of “dowry” and emphasizes the need for a broad interpretation to combat the social evil of dowry demands.

Case Background

Geeta Bai, aged 18, married Jogendra (Respondent No. 1) on May 7, 1998. Within four years of marriage, she died by suicide at her matrimonial home on April 20, 2002, while five months pregnant. She poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. Before her marriage, Geeta Bai, her mother Kamla Bai, and her brother lived with her maternal uncle, Bansi Lal (PW-1). An FIR was lodged on April 23, 2002, after the attending doctor informed the police. The trial court convicted Jogendra and his father Badri Prasad (Respondent No. 2) under Sections 304-B, 306, and 498-A of the IPC, but the High Court overturned the convictions under Sections 304-B and 306, while upholding Jogendra’s conviction under Section 498-A with a reduced sentence. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Jogendra (A-1) and Badri Prasad (A-2) under Sections 304-B, 306, and 498-A of the IPC, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, in appeal, acquitted Badri Prasad (A-2) of all charges and set aside Jogendra’s (A-1) conviction under Sections 304-B and 306, while maintaining his conviction under Section 498-A but reducing his sentence. The High Court relied on previous judgments, holding that the demand for money to construct a house did not constitute a dowry demand. The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with dowry death. It states that if a woman dies due to burns or bodily injuries or under abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry, her death is considered a dowry death. The punishment for this offense is imprisonment for a minimum of seven years and a maximum of life imprisonment.
• Section 498-A of the IPC: This section addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. It penalizes any willful conduct that is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health.
• Section 306 of the IPC: This section deals with abetment of suicide, making it a punishable offense to instigate or aid someone in committing suicide.
• Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: This section defines “dowry” as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage.
  
  “2. 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 parents of either party to a marriage by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage 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. Explanation I.—xxx xxx Explanation II.— The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

The Court emphasized that the interpretation of “dowry” must be expansive to fulfill the object of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is to eradicate the social evil of dowry demand. This interpretation is crucial for the effective implementation of Section 304-B of the IPC.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh):

• The State argued that the High Court failed to appreciate the harassment caused to the deceased by the respondents, who constantly demanded money for house construction and a plot of land.
• The testimonies of Bansi Lal (PW-1), Shyam Bihari (PW-2), Amrit Lal (PW-4), and Rajesh Bhai (PW-6) were consistent in stating that the deceased was assaulted for not bringing ₹50,000 for house construction.
• The demand for money for house construction should be treated as a dowry demand, and the offense under Section 304-B of the IPC is clearly made out.
• This was a clear case of abetment to suicide, and both respondents were rightly convicted by the trial court.

Respondent (Jogendra and Badri Prasad):

• The respondents argued that the demand for money to construct a house cannot be considered a dowry demand.
• They contended that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death.
• They submitted that there was no evidence to suggest that they had abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
• The High Court had rightly acquitted them under Sections 304-B and 306 of the IPC.

Sub-Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the demand for money for the construction of a house constitutes a demand for dowry under Section 304-B of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?
2. Whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the respondents soon before her death?
3. Whether the respondents abetted the suicide of the deceased.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court expressly overruled Appasaheb and Another v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 9 SCC 721] and Vipin Jaiswal[a-1] v. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Public Prosecutor [(2013) 3 SCC 684], stating that they did not state the law correctly on the definition of “dowry.”
• The Court followed Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2015) 6 SCC 477], which provided an expansive definition of dowry.
• The Court relied on Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Others [(2000) 5 SCC 207], Dinesh v. State of Haryana [(2014) 12 SCC 532] and Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana [(2015) 3 SCC 724] to define ‘soon before’.
• The Court relied on Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab [(2021) 6 SCC 108] and Satbir Singh and Another v. State of Haryana [(2021) 6 SCC 1] to reiterate the guidelines relating to trial under Section 304-B IPC.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s analysis was correct and the respondents deserved to be convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC. The Court, however, did not disturb the High Court’s finding that the respondents were not guilty of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.

The sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years, the minimum sentence prescribed for an offense under Section 304-B of the IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several key factors:

• Expansive Interpretation of Dowry: The Court emphasized that the term “dowry” must be interpreted broadly to include any demand for property or valuable security in connection with marriage. This was a crucial point in overturning the High Court’s view.
• Continuous Harassment: The Court noted that the deceased was subjected to continuous harassment for dowry demands, starting within six months of her marriage and continuing until her death. This continuous harassment established a clear link between the dowry demand and her suicide.
• Proximity to Death: The Court clarified that “soon before death” does not mean “immediately before death.” The harassment and cruelty must be proximate to the death, and in this case, the continuous demands and harassment fulfilled this condition.
• Social Context: The Court considered the social and economic background of the parties, noting that the marriage was conducted in a community marriage organization, indicating that the parties were not financially well-off. This context helped the Court understand the deceased’s helplessness.
• Upholding Legislative Intent: The Court emphasized that the intention behind Section 304-B of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is to curb the social evil of dowry demand. The interpretation of these laws must promote this objective.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Expansive Definition of Dowry: The judgment clarifies that any demand for money, property, or valuable security in connection with marriage constitutes dowry, reinforcing the intent of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• Proximity of Harassment: The term “soon before” does not mean “immediately before” but requires a proximate link between the dowry demand and the death. Continuous harassment for dowry can fulfill this condition.
• Social Context Matters: Courts must consider the social and economic background of the parties to understand the context of dowry demands and the helplessness of the victims.
• Overruling of Previous Judgments: The Supreme Court overruled previous decisions that had taken a narrow view of dowry, emphasizing the need for a broad interpretation to combat the social evil of dowry.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to undergo the remaining period of their sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that any demand for money or property made in connection with marriage is considered dowry, and the term “soon before” should be interpreted to mean proximate to the death, not immediately before. This judgment clarifies and expands the definition of dowry, overruling previous narrow interpretations. This case has changed the previous position of law laid down in Appasaheb and Another v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 9 SCC 721] and Vipin Jaiswal[a-1] v. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Public Prosecutor [(2013) 3 SCC 684].

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jogendra & Anr. is a significant step in combating the social evil of dowry. By providing an expansive definition of “dowry” and clarifying the meaning of “soon before death,” the Court has reinforced the intent of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and Section 304-B of the IPC. This judgment ensures that perpetrators of dowry-related crimes are brought to justice and sends a strong message against the practice of dowry demands.