Can’t Say That Case Of Dowry Death Is Not Made Out Merely Because Deceased Committed Suicide In Her Parental Home And Not In Her Matrimonial Home: Delhi High Court

The accused-appellant approached the High Court with a plea to be released on regular bail in a case registered against him under Section 304B, 306, 498A read with Section 34 IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia said, “I am unable to convince myself that merely because the deceased committed suicide in her parental home and not in her matrimonial home, it is not a case of dowry death. Place where a tormented lady gets compelled to kill herself has no bearing. For purposive interpretation of the provision under Section 304B IPC, it is the existence and continuance of matrimony which has to be kept in mind and not the place(s) to which the deceased shifts herself before taking her life.”

Advocate Mohit Sharma represented the Applicant while APP Manjeet Arya represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged in the FIR that the complainant’s daughter married the accused/applicant, but the very next day of marriage, the accused/applicant told her that she was not his choice and he had married her under pressure from his family. The girl went to her matrimonial home, where she was harassed by all the accused persons, demanding money. The complainant-father had also received a call from her apprising him of the abovesaid allegations. He brought her to her parental home. It was alleged that she used to remain depressed, and on the day of the incident, her father found her hanging with a dupatta from the ventilator.

Arguments

One of the arguments raised by the applicant-accused was that since the deceased committed suicide admittedly at her parental home and not at her matrimonial home, offence under Section 304B IPC was not attracted. It was also submitted that there was no material to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or dowry harassment.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts and submissions, the High Court held that the existence and continuance of matrimony has to be kept in mind and not the place(s) to which the deceased shifts herself before taking her life. The Bench explained that the expression “soon before her death”, as used in Section 304B IPC has to be construed keeping in mind the scope and purpose behind the enactment. In doing so, this expression has to be read as an expression of continuity of time and not an expression of mere length of time.

“One has to keep in mind that the legislature in its wisdom used the phrase in question as “soon before” and not “immediately before”. What is contemplated by Section 304B IPC is “soon before death” and not “immediately before death”, it added.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that in the FIR, there were specific allegations of dowry harassment. The accused/applicant got married to the deceased, and on the very next day of marriage, the accused/applicant and his family members started harassing the deceased over dowry, stating that the deposit of Rs. 7,00,000 brought by her from her parental home would fetch only a small car. The deceased shifted to her parental home, after which she continued to remain in communication with the accused/applicant over the telephone. The last telephone call was 584 seconds long and followed her suicide. In light of such facts, the Bench refused to accept the contention that the offence under Section 304B IPC would not be made out because there was no allegation of harassment soon before the death of the deceased.

Finding the present case not to be one where the applicant could be released, the Bench dismissed the bail Petition.

Cause Title: Vinay v. State Govt. Of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2372)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocate Mohit Sharma

Respondent: APP Manjeet Arya, Inspector Davender Singh, Advocate Amrita Sharma

Click here to read/download Order