Every Petty Instance & Family Bickering Not Harassment Made In Connection With Demand For Dowry: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Husband, In-Laws
The Gujarat High Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment whereby the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, Justice D. M. Vyas, Gujarat High Court
While upholding the acquittal of a man and his mother in an alleged case of dowry death, the Gujarat High Court has observed that every petty instance and family bickering cannot be construed as harassment made in connection with the demand for dowry.
The High Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment whereby the accused persons in the said case were acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice D. M. Vyas said, “ Therefore, the predominant requirement, which is essential to prove the offence under Section 304-B is not established even from her dying declaration. Her statement in dying declaration, at best, only proves that there are some family bickerings between her and her mother-in-law and also with her husband. Every petty instance and family bickerings, which are common in any family life, cannot be construed as harassment made in connection with demand for dowry. To prove an offence under Section 304-B, as discussed supra, there must be definite evidence relating to harassment caused in connection with demand for dowry. As the same is not established even from the dying declaration of the deceased, it is of no any use to the prosecution to establish its case against the accused for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.”
APP Bhargav Pandya represented the Appellant.
Factual Background
The deceased woman was the legally wedded wife of Accused 1. Their marriage was solemnized about four years before her death. The deceased was pregnant at the time of her death. Allegedly, there was a strained relationship between the deceased and her mother-in-law, who is accused 3. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused persons used to harass her, demanding additional dowry from her. When the deceased woman’s mother came to take her back, there was a quarrel between the deceased and her mother-in-law, relating to the food that was prepared. Unable to bear said harassment, the deceased immediately went into a room, poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. She was taken to a Hospital and on the requisition given by the concerned doctor, the Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of the injured.
The woman had stated that unable to bear the harassment meted out by her at the hands of her husband and the in-laws, she went into a room and poured kerosene and set herself ablaze. She died on the same day a case came to be registered under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B and 114 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court found the accused not guilty of any of the charges levelled against them and acquitted them of the said offences. Aggrieved, the State preferred the appeal before the High Court.
Reasoning
Referring to section 304-B of the IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the Bench explained, “Thus, a conjoint reading of both Sections 304-B of IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act makes it manifest that the prosecution has to invariably prove that there was cruelty or harassment caused to the woman within seven years of her marriage and, more particularly, that the said cruelty or harassment was caused for or in connection with any demand for dowry. Every harassment, which is not relating to demand for dowry, will not come within the purview of the offence of dowry death as contemplated under Section 304-B of IPC.”
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that though the mother of the deceased lodged an FIR, she did not support the prosecution version in her evidence given in the Court. The father, mother, brother and uncle of the deceased also turned hostile, and they did not depose that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment by making any demand for dowry.
As there was no evidence on record to prove that the accused made any illegal demand for dowry or that they had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any such demand for dowry, the Bench noted that the basic prerequisites essential for the purpose of proving the offence under Section 304-B of IPC were conspicuously absent and they were not proved by the prosecution against the accused. Moreover, no presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act could be invoked in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
Coming to the allegations pertaining to Section 498-A of IPC, the Bench noted that even as per the statement given by the deceased in her dying declaration, it did not satisfy the definition of “cruelty” as envisaged in Section 498-A of IPC. “If the deceased, either because of her sensitive mind or of weak nature or emotional temperament, takes extreme decision of putting an end to her life in the normal family bickering that took place in the house, accused cannot be attributed with said conduct, so as to hold them responsible for the offence of abetment to commit suicide, as required under Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, the offence under Section 306 is also not proved and established in this case by the prosecution”, it observed.
The Bench found no evidence of subjecting the deceased to any cruelty or harassment, with demand for dowry, valuable security or property. Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench confirmed the judgment acquitting the respondents-accused.
Cause Title: State of Gujarat v. Paresh Shantilal & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:33892-DB)
Appearance
Appellant: APP Bhargav Pandya
