Demand Does Not Cease To Be Dowry Demand Merely Because Disclosed Purpose Is “Business” & Not “Personal Use”: Delhi High Court
The Bench while affirming conviction of husband and brother-in-law, noted that Section 304-B IPC does not require proof of any concluded agreement to give dowry, a demand alone being sufficient.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has upheld, after a pendency of 22 years, the conviction of a husband and his brother for the dowry death of a woman within four and a half months of marriage, holding that a demand of money remains a dowry demand even where a witness explains it as intended for setting up a business, so long as it is connected with the marital relationship.
The Court affirmed the Trial Court's reliance on the settled principle that Section 304-B IPC does not require the prosecution to establish any concluded agreement between the parties to pay dowry, a mere demand being sufficient to attract the provision, and rejected the appellants' contention that the explanation offered by one witness regarding the purpose of the demand diluted the prosecution's case.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed, “…The circumstance that PW- 2, in the course of her testimony, explained the demand as being connected with setting up a business does not take it outside the definition of dowry, since a demand connected with the marital relationship does not cease to be a dowry demand merely because the purpose disclosed for it is ‘business’ rather than ‘personal use’. The Trial Court's reliance on the principle that Section 304-B IPC does not require proof of any concluded ‘agreement’ to give dowry, a demand alone being sufficient, correctly states the law and requires no interference”.
Advocate Dharmendra Vashishtha appeared for the appellants and Mukesh Kumar, APP appeared for the respondent.
The prosecution's case was that the deceased, married to appellant Naveen Kumar Verma on November 29, 2002, was found hanging from a ceiling fan at her matrimonial home in Tughlakabad on April 10, 2003.
Her father, in a statement recorded by the SDM the following day, alleged that Naveen and his brother Ajay Kumar Verma used to beat her and demand dowry of Rs. 50,000, and blamed the couple's mother as well. An FIR was registered under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC, and after trial, the brothers were convicted and sentenced to ten years' and three years' rigorous imprisonment respectively, while their mother was acquitted by extending her the benefit of doubt.
Before the Court, the appellants contended that the prosecution witnesses were all closely related to the deceased and hence interested, that a mediator of the marriage had deposed the couple lived happily, and that a telephonic distress call allegedly made two days before the death was a material improvement introduced for the first time at trial. It was also argued that PW-2's admission that the Rs. 50,000 demand was connected to setting up a business took the demand outside the scope of "dowry".
Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that a related witness is not, per se, an interested witness, particularly where the alleged cruelty occurs within the matrimonial home and family members are the natural recipients of the victim's complaints.
On the specific question of the business-purpose explanation, the Court held that a demand connected with the marital relationship does not lose its character as a dowry demand merely because the purpose disclosed for it is business rather than personal use, and affirmed that Section 304-B IPC requires only a demand, not a concluded agreement to pay.
Applying the "soon before death" proximity test, the Court found that even on the appellants' own case, an interval of a little over three months between the onset of harassment and the death satisfied the requirement of proximity, thereby triggering the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The Court further held that the appellants failed to rebut this presumption, their plea of alibi being unsubstantiated and their suggestion of the deceased's illicit relationship being an afterthought never put to prosecution witnesses.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal, sustaining the conviction and sentence in full, and directed the appellants to surrender forthwith to serve their remaining sentence, subject to the benefit of set-off already granted under Section 428 of the CrPC.
Cause Title: Naveen Kumar Verma & Anr. v. State (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:7815)
Appearances:
Appellants: Dharmendra Vashishtha, Sumit Kalra, Yashika Malhotra, Advocates.
Respondent: Mukesh Kumar, APP, SI Anil Kumar, PS Okhla.