This article is written by Arya Mittal. The article seeks to critically analyse the landmark case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2021), wherein the Court laid down guidelines for conducting trials in instances of dowry death. An attempt has been made to analyse the outcomes of the judgement with regard to Article 21 of the Constitution. This article also seeks to analyse the changes brought in through the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Table of Contents
The practice of dowry persists across cultures and haunts the lives of countless women, even after centuries. Countries like India report thousands of cases each year concerning dowry deaths and related offences of mental and physical cruelty. Though the tradition has evolved tremendously in the last few decades, it is still being practised in covert forms despite being declared illegal in the Indian legal system for more than six decades now.
In the traditional setup, dowry is the monetary value or gifts in the form of valuable movable or immovable property that are given by the bride’s family to the groom’s family. The tradition finds its roots in the patriarchal setup, where the bride’s family is forced to pay such exorbitant amounts as dowry owing to the coercion caused by the groom and his family. Some unfortunate consequences of failure to meet such demands result in offences such as cruelty, domestic violence and dowry deaths against women. This article aims to discuss one such landmark case relating to dowry death, wherein it settled the position relating to punishment in instances of dowry death.
In order to tackle such a rampant issue, the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 was enacted. Additionally, Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, also prohibits the payment of dowry and lays down the punishment for the same.
According to Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, dowry refers to any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, directly or indirectly, by one party to a marriage to another party or by the parents of such parties. However, any amount given as mahr or dower in accordance with Muslim law shall not fall within the definition of dowry. The statute also contains various other provisions relating to the penalty for taking or giving dowry, cognizance of offences, etc.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines, dowry death under Section 304B as follows:
“(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.”
Sub-section 1 of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code lays down the essential ingredients that constitute dowry death, which are:
Sub-section 2 lays down the punishment for the offence of dowry death. It states that any person who commits such an offence shall be punished for a term not less than seven years. Such a punishment may be extended to imprisonment for life. There has been substantial discourse as to whether graver punishment may be given for the offence of dowry death. The same has also been the focal point of the 202nd Law Commission Report, wherein the Commission sought to examine whether Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code should be amended to provide for more stringent punishment, such as the death sentence. However, after careful consideration, the Commission concluded that there was no warrant for a death penalty in cases of dowry deaths.
It is also imperative to note that the explanation annexed to the provision clarifies that the term ‘dowry’ shall be assigned the same meaning as that provided under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. An offence committed under Section 304B of the IPC is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence.
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, stipulates the presumption as to dowry death. It states that when the question pertains to whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is established that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by such a person and the same was done in connection with any demand for dowry, the court, in such circumstances, shall presume that such a person has caused the dowry death. The burden thereon lies on the husband or the accused to prove his innocence in the matter of the dowry death.
Satbir Singh, the Appellant, and the deceased wife (victim) were married on July 01, 1994. On 31.07.1994, the father of the deceased was informed of the dire condition of his daughter, due to which she was admitted to the hospital. However, by the time the family of the victim reached the hospital, the victim had already succumbed to her burn injuries.
In the complaint filed by the victim’s family, it was stated that the deceased had previously been subjected to harassment by the Appellants (husband and his family) due to the fact that she had brought less dowry than that demanded by the Appellants. The Appellant, on the contrary, argued that the deceased had committed suicide by setting herself ablaze, and the same had happened only after a year of her marriage.
On 11.12.1997, after careful perusal of the facts and the evidence, the Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 304B and Section 306 of the IPC and were therefore sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years and five years for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 306, respectively.
In order to challenge the order of the Trial Court and set aside their conviction, the Appellants approached the Hon’ble High Court. However, the High Court, vide order dated 06.11.2008 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Trial Court. Thereafter, they filed a Special Leave Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, challenging the findings of the lower courts, which forms the scope of the present case.
After perusing the material on record, the Hon’ble Supreme Court framed two issues, which were as follows:
The Appellants contended that there exists a possibility of accidental fire, which has not been ruled out by the Trial Court or the High Court. They further contended that the prosecution did not prove the accusations of a demand for dowry from the deceased. Even if there was a demand, the prosecution also failed to prove the proximity of such a demand to the death of the deceased.
The Respondents contended that the Appellants failed to establish any circumstances under which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has to interfere with the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court. Moreover, the Respondents emphasised the suspicious death of the deceased within almost 1 year of the marriage. Further, they also contended that there were various witnesses consistently stating that there was a demand for dowry by the Appellants.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed the case in two contentious parts. The first part included the interpretation of Section 304B of the IPC, specifically the interpretation of the phrase “soon before”. It was stated that IPC being a criminal statute, the interpretation must be literal and strict; however, if such strict interpretation goes against the spirit of the statute itself, the Court may construe a general import of words to do away with such absurdity.
The Court also delved into the legislative history of Section 304B of the IPC. It was noted that Parliament had been regularly attempting to curb the practice of dowry. Reliance was placed upon the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, the 91st Law Commission Report, and the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986.
Accordingly, the Court held that the interpretation of the phrase “soon before” cannot be construed to mean “immediately before”. Rather, it is at the discretion of the Court to determine the period that may be included under the phrase “soon before”, as no straightjacket formula can be applied to the same. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000), wherein it was held that it is a relative term and must be considered under the specific circumstances of each case. The Court has to consider cruelty or harassment to the deceased in cases of dowry death, and the same cannot be restricted to any particular instances but rather refers to a course of conduct. “The proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand for dowry, cruelty, or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time, which, under the circumstances, should be treated as having become stale enough.”
Thus, in such cases, if the prosecution is able to establish a proximate and live link between the death of the person and cruelty upon them, the onus shifts upon the accused to rebut a presumption of causation arising against them under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court held that the courts must be extra cautious while dealing with cases of dowry death, especially while recording the rebuttal of the accused against the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
The other contentious part of the case was whether the death was a suicide. The Court observed that the statute is clear that if the death is caused in any manner under “circumstances other than normal circumstances” and all the other requirements under Section 304B have been fulfilled, such a death occurring within seven years of marriage shall be considered a dowry death. Since the accused failed to prove that the death of the deceased was caused otherwise than due to the cruelty of demanding dowry, the death shall be considered as a “dowry death” due to the statutory mandate.
The Court also observed that the decision of the Trial Court and the High Court that the deceased had committed suicide was based merely on assumptions and not on any evidence. Thus, no case was made under Section 306 of the IPC, and the court set aside the sentence under Section 306.
The Court also observed that cases of dowry deaths must be dealt with great caution by the courts. The Court should pay extra attention to the procedures laid down under Sections 232, 233, and 313 of the CrPC, Section 113B of the Evidence Act, Section 304B of the IPC, etc. Moreover, the courts must also be cautious when other family members of the accused are accused of being involved in demanding dowry, as most of the time, such is not the case.
The ratio of the Supreme Court, as discussed above, clearly indicates how it is relevant to establish a proximate link between the demand for dowry and death caused by cruelty. Based on the decision, a brief analysis of the case has been done hereafter to understand the legitimacy and implications of the case.
All the essential elements that constitute dowry death have been enshrined under Section 304B of the IPC itself, as discussed above. Many of these elements have also been interpreted by the courts to understand their scope and applicability under different circumstances.
In regard to the interpretation of the phrase ‘soon before’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005), held that in cases of dowry death, it would be hazardous to fix a time period for the phrase “soon before” as the proximity test plays an important role in proving the offence of dowry death as well as the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Further, in Bachni Devi v. State of Haryana through Secretary of Home Department (2011), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the term ‘dowry’ is construed comprehensively to include any property, in any form whatsoever, that is connected with the marriage directly or indirectly. The demand for any property directly or indirectly connected with the marriage, shall amount to the demand for dowry. If the cause of the death of the wife is in proximity to such a demand, it shall constitute a dowry death.
Article 21 of the Constitution provides that every person shall have the right to life and personal liberty. This also includes the right to live free from any form of cruelty or torture, be it physical, mental, or emotional. The practice of dowry creates immense pressure not only on the bride but also on her family members. It is the state’s responsibility to curb such practices of torture and aid women in enjoying their right to liberty.
According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), in 2022, around 13,500 cases were reported under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Out of these cases, close to 6,450 cases included dowry deaths. This brings the number of reported dowry deaths to over 17 per day. Provided little awareness regarding the law, this number may not be even close to the actual number of deaths due to the demand for dowry by the husband or his family members.
One of the essential conditions under Section 304B of the IPC is that the death of the woman is caused by burns or bodily injury. Often, the woman commits suicide due to the pressure created on her by her husband or his family members.
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that in cases of dowry death, a presumption against the accused husband and/or his family members shall arise regarding the cause of the death. Moreover, Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that in cases where a woman commits suicide within 7 years of her marriage, the court may make a presumption against the husband or any relative of her husband if it is found that they have treated the woman with cruelty. If such presumption is not rebutted by the husband or such relative, the court may hold them liable for abetment of suicide and punish them under Section 306 of the IPC.
For a presumption to be made under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the prosecution must prove certain factors relating to the cruelty on the woman by her husband or a family member. It is only in such a scenario that the Court may presume that the husband or such relative is liable for the abetment of suicide of the woman.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) has repealed and replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with effect from July 1, 2024. The object of the BNS is to bring reforms to the regressive criminal laws and include the contemporary needs of society. The law relating to dowry deaths under the IPC was included under the chapter “of Offences Affecting Human Body” under Section 304B. However, it has been placed under Section 79 of the BNS under the chapter “of Offences Affecting Life”, specifically under “Offences Related to Marriage”.
The placement of an offence in a statute helps in understanding the legislative intent behind it. Additionally, it also aids in the effective implementation of the provision. Moreover, it ensures clarity and accessibility, minimises confusion, and maintains consistency during amendments. The arrangement reflects contextual relationships between legal concepts, facilitates cross-referencing, and supports efficient legal research.
With regards to the changes in the evidence law, Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act has been replaced by Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita, 2023. The new provision is pari materia to the old provision.
As discussed earlier, dowry deaths are a grave violation of human rights such as the right to life, the right to security in one’s person, the right to be free from torture, etc. These basic rights have been provided under the International Bill of Rights, which comprises the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 1966 (ICESCR).
Apart from the International Bill of Rights, the Declaration for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, 1994 (DEVAW) also provides certain basic human rights to women. Dowry-related violence has been included as violence against women under Article 2 of DEVAW. Further, Article 3 of DEVAW provides the right to life and the right against all forms of discrimination, along with the right not to be subjected to torture and cruelty.
All the aforementioned covenants and international instruments emphasise the equal protection of women from all forms of cruelty. These documents, regardless of their enforceability, create an obligation on the state to enforce municipal laws in an effective manner. By not enforcing the laws relating to dowry effectively, India may contravene its international obligations.
It is unfortunate that in a country like India, where women have been worshipped since time immemorial, they have to suffer and become victims of dowry death. A tradition that had its roots in ensuring sufficient property for the girl after marriage has taken the disastrous form of fulfilling the endless, unreasonable needs of the groom’s family. Though the law had been formulated long ago, the lack of proper enforcement mechanisms has led to the continued prevalence of this cruel system of dowry, which has taken the lives of thousands of women.
Issues continue to arise before the courts regarding the demand for dowry, violence against women regarding dowry, and suicide committed by women due to cruelty by the husband or his family members. Although various efforts have been made to prevent the offences by introducing strict punishments through legislative action, the lack of a proper enforcement mechanism further aggravates the issue.
Dowry death refers to the killing of the wife by the husband or his family soon after the marriage due to dissatisfaction with the dowry. It usually comprises a series of acts before the actual death of the woman. These acts may include abuse of any kind, i.e., physical, mental, or emotional abuse. The courts have interpreted various elements of dowry death to construe a wider meaning for the term.
Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, prescribes the punishment for giving or taking dowry. Such acts may be punishable by imprisonment for a minimum term of five years along with fine to the tune of Rs. 15000 or the amount of dowry, whichever is higher.
Section 4 of the Act prescribes the punishment for demanding dowry. It shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend from six months to two years and a fine up to Rs. 10000.
Section 304B of the IPC provides the punishment of dowry to death to be not less than 7 years of imprisonment, which may be extended to life imprisonment. Moreover, an offence committed under Section 304B of the IPC is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence.
India, following the adversarial system of criminal justice, holds that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. However, Section 304B of the IPC shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. Even in the above-discussed case, the Court stated that where the prosecution has established all the essential conditions of dowry death, the presumption of guilt shifts against the husband and/or his family.
In the landmark judgement of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2021), the Supreme Court gave an important interpretation of the phrase ‘soon before’ used under Section 304B of the IPC. It was stated that ‘soon before’ cannot be interpreted as ‘immediately before the death’ of the wife. The rationale behind the same was that if such a narrow interpretation was given to the phrase, it would defeat the purpose of the provision itself. Moreover, no particular time period can be fixed for the phrase, as it may vary from case to case.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
