INTRODUCTION
‘Dowry deaths’ comprise a unique category of deaths in India. The tradition of dowry started in the form of “Vardakshina” which was used to be given by the parents of the bride to the bridegroom out of love and affection and to honour the groom rather than to induce him to take the bride. Later on it became the symbol of status and prestige to assert one’s superiority over others and dowry emerged as an unintended consequence of the above social practice. The law-makers, taking the note of seriousness and consequence of the problem legislative measures to plug the loopholes in the law as well as to enact new provisions so as to make the law rational and effective. The Dowry Prohibition Act, the first national legislation to deal with the social evil of dowry, was passed in 1961. The object of this act is to prohibit giving and taking of dowry.
DEFINITION OF DOWRY
It has been observed in Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991) 1 SCC 371, that the term “dowry” has not been defined anywhere except in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The definition of “dowry” provided by this section is: “any property or valuable security to be given directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to marriage at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties”. Payments which are customary payments, e.g., given at the time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies are not covered by dowry.
DOWRY DEATH
“Dowry death” can be seen as a result of a unique form of violence suffered by Indian women. According to Sec 304-B IPC, makes the offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that the ingredients necessary to attract Section 304-B IPC are:
(1) death of a woman is either by burns or by bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(2) it should be within seven years of marriage;
(3) it should also be shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or any relative of husband;
(4) such harassment or cruelty should pertain to demand for dowry.
In Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388, the Court gave a practical dimension to this. The body of the victim was found by her brother, lying in the verandah of the appellant’s house with blood oozing from her mouth and evident marks of violence on her neck. It appeared that the victim had been murdered by strangulation in the previous night. The Court relied on the opinion of the doctor, the evidences recovered and the testimony of the witnesses to hold that the death of the woman had been caused otherwise than under normal circumstances as expressed in Section 304-B, and hence it was a case of “dowry death”. Under Section 498-A IPC, cruelty to a wife by her husband, or any of his relatives, is punishable with imprisonment for up to three years and also a fine. “Cruelty” here is defined as any wilful misconduct, either mental or physical, which drives the woman to commit suicide or causes grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. Any offence under this section is nonbailable and non-compoundable. By virtue of this section, dowry harassment is covered under the definition of “cruelty”. It was emphasised in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) 8 SCC 633, that there should be a perceptible nexus between the death of the woman and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the Court would be in a position to gauge that in all probability that would not have the immediate case of her death. The relation between demand for dowry and cruelty has been explained by the Supreme Court in Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, In this case, the victim, a newly-wed woman, who had committed suicide within a year of her marriage, was subjected to utmost cruelty. The cruelty assumed such magnitudes that insinuations were made that the woman had an illegitimate child. The Court held that the cruelty inflicted upon the woman was not just physical but also mental. Taunts on carrying of an illegitimate child led the victim to take her life. The Court held that death in cases of dowry, may not be caused by the husband or his family directly, but as long as the death results from the cruelty inflicted by them, the case will be that of a dowry death. Section 113B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for presumption as to dowry death. It provides that when the question is whether the dowry death, namely, the death contemplated under Section 304B of the IPC, has been committed by a person, if it is shown that soon before her death, the woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment, for in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. It is no doubt a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the husband and his relatives to show the absence of the elements of Section 304B." When the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage in Ramesh Vithal Patil v. State of Karnataka (2014) 11 SCC 516), Section 113-A of the Evidence Act was attracted to the case. Presumption contemplated therein, as to abetment of suicide by a married woman, sprang into action. This provision (Section 113-A) was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 to resolve the difficulty of proof where married women are forced to commit suicide but incriminating evidence is difficult to get as it is usually available within the four walls of the matrimonial home.
CONCLUSION
According to NCRB reports on an average, every hour a woman succumbs to dowry deaths in India with the annual figure rising upwards of 7000. India has an alarming trend that sees 20 women die every day as a result of harassment over a dowry – either murdered, or compelled to commit suicide. Dowry will not vanish overnight by law alone. At a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament, the Prime Minister, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru on Dowry Prohibition Bill in May 1961 observed: "Legislation cannot by itself normally solve deep rooted social problems. One has to approach them in other ways too, but legislation is necessary and essential, so that it may give that push and have that educative factor as well as the legal sanctions behind it which help public opinion to be given a certain shape." The concept of dowry has been so intimately linked with custom that it has become legitimized in the subconscious minds of people and is not perceived as immoral or illegal. Several suggestions have been made to control the evil of dowry such as increased efforts at legal literacy and social mobilisation for legal action. One of the serious handicaps in dowry cases has been the manipulation by investigating agencies in collusion with public servants such as government doctors, magistrates etc. The law should be strengthened to deal severely with such cases and classify it as a crime of "custodial suppression of evidence.
Very insightful
ReplyDelete