Dowry Death under Section 80 BNS Dowry Prohibition Act 1961
Dowry Death Section 304B IPC - Explanation with Case Laws
Dowry death is one of the most heinous social evils prevalent in India. It refers to the unnatural death of a married woman caused by harassment or cruelty in connection with dowry demands made by her husband or his relatives. Despite legislative measures and judicial interventions, dowry-related violence continues to claim the lives of many young women.
Dowry Death as a separate offence
The offence of dowry death was formally incorporated into the Indian Penal Code through the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986, by inserting Section 304B (now sec. 80 of BNS). This legislative step was taken in response to the alarming rise in cases where young brides lost their lives due to harassment and cruelty over unmet dowry demands. The law aims to address these atrocities by making such deaths a distinct and serious offence, ensuring accountability of the husband and his relatives.
Position prior to 1986
Before the insertion of Section 304B IPC in 1986, dowry-related deaths were prosecuted under general provisions such as 302 IPC (murder) and Section 306 IPC. However, these provisions proved inadequate in addressing the recurring problem of women dying under suspicious or unnatural circumstances within a few years of marriage due to dowry harassment. The difficulty lay in the fact that offences under Sections 302 and 306 of IPC required strict proof and direct evidence, which was often unavailable in dowry-related cases since the acts of cruelty or death usually occurred within the privacy of the matrimonial home. This made it extremely difficult for the prosecution to secure convictions. Recognizing this evidentiary challenge, the legislature introduced a separate provision for dowry death under Section 304B IPC (Section 80 BNS), which deems certain circumstances such as the woman's death being unnatural and occurring within seven years of marriage, coupled with evidence of cruelty or harassment over dowry demands as sufficient to hold the husband or his relatives accountable.
Essential Ingredients of Dowry Death
Death of a woman must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
Such death must have taken place within seven years of her marriage;
she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband;
such cruelty or harassment should be for, or in connection with, the demand for dowry;
such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
Dowry
According to Sec. 2(1), Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961:
Dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given:
By one party to a marriage to the other party, or
By the parents of either party, or by any other person, to either party of the marriage or to any other person,
at, before, or any time after the marriage, in connection with the marriage of the said parties.
However, in the case of Muslims, dower or mehar under Muslim Personal Law is excluded.
Important elements of dowry
a) Property or valuable security
It can be in the form of money, ornaments, property, or any valuable security as defined under Section 30, IPC [Section 2(31) of BNS].
b) Given or Agreed to be Given
Even a promise or agreement to give dowry falls within the definition.
c) By Either Side
It can be given by the bride, groom, their parents, or any other person.
d) Timing
It may be given before, at the time of, or after the marriage.
e) Connection with Marriage
The most important requirement is that the giving must be in connection with the marriage.
Presents given at the time of marriage
Explanation 1 to Sec. 2(1), Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that presents given to the bride or groom at the time of marriage, such as cash, ornaments, clothes, or household articles, are not treated as dowry, provided they are voluntary gifts and not given as consideration for the marriage.
Judicial Interpretation of 'Dowry'
The definition of dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is broad, but courts have clarified its scope through various judgments.
Agreement not necessary
Courts have held that the word "agreement" in Sec. 2(1), Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 must be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.
Conviction does not require proof of a formal agreement for dowry. Even persistent demands made after marriage, if connected to marriage, constitute dowry demands.
State of Himachal Pradesh v Nikku Ram (1995) - The Supreme Court has explained in this case that though the definition of 'dowry' is stated as 'property or valuable security given or agreed to be given...' demands made after marriage could also be a part of the consideration because an implied agreement has to be read to give property or valuable securities, even if asked after the marriage as a part of consideration for the marriage.
In Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana (1998), SC held that the word 'agreement' referred to in section 2 has to be inferred on the facts and circumstances of each case. The plea that conviction can only be if there is agreement for dowry is misconceived. It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry. In the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was very clear. After a few days of the marriage, there was demand for a scooter and fridge, which when not being met, led to repetitive taunts and maltreatment. Such demands cannot be said to be not in connection with the marriage. Hence, the evidence qualifies to be demanded for dowry in connection with the marriage.
Demands Unrelated to Marriage – Not Dowry
Certain demands made by the husband or his relatives, though oppressive, may not fall within the definition of dowry if they are unconnected with marriage.
In K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivas Rao (2003), Demand for transfer of wife's Stridhana was held not to be dowry, since it was unrelated to marriage consideration.
In Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (2008), the Court held that demand for a wife's share in her father's estate was not to be treated as dowry.
In Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra (2007), the Court held that a demand for money for meeting domestic expenses or agricultural needs cannot be treated as demand for dowry. However, in Bachni Devi v. State of Haryana (2011), the Supreme Court clarified that the Appasaheb dictum must be understood in its factual setting, and that a demand for property or valuable security having a direct nexus with marriage would amount to dowry.
- Not necessary that there should be demand of a particular item to make a dowry demand - Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan (2007)
Meaning of Cruelty under Section 304B IPC (Section 80 BNS)
Section 304B IPC (Section 80 BNS) does not itself define the term "cruelty". However, guidance is drawn from Section 498A IPC (Section 86 BNS), which expressly explains what amounts to cruelty.
In Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991), the Supreme Court held that Sections 304B and 498A are not mutually exclusive. Since both provisions deal with matrimonial cruelty and harassment, the definition of cruelty under Section 498A can be applied to cases under Section 304B.
Cruelty under Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS)
As per the Explanation to Section 498A, cruelty means:
Wilful Conduct – Any conduct which is of such a nature as is likely:
to drive the woman to commit suicide, or
to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health (mental or physical).
Harassment for Dowry - Harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or on account of failure to meet such demand.
Thus, for the purpose of dowry death, the meaning of cruelty under Section 498A can be applied to Section 304B. This ensures that:
Both physical and mental cruelty are covered, and
Harassment specifically linked to dowry demands falls within the ambit of dowry death cases.
'Soon before' her death woman should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment
One of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B IPC (Section 80 BNS) is that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives "soon before her death" in connection with a demand for dowry.
Meaning of "Soon Before"
The term "soon before" is a relative expression. It does not mean "immediately before".
There is no fixed time frame laid down by law.
What qualifies as "soon before" depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The underlying principle is the proximity test, i.e. there must be a direct, live, and proximate link between cruelty/harassment and the unnatural death.
In Keshab Chandra Pande v. State (1995), the accused married the deceased in January, 1989. In June 1989, husband assaulted her with an iron rod because of dowry demands. She left her matrimonial home but returned in January, 1990 after mediation. In March 1991, she died, but there was no proof of cruelty after her return.
Court held that the assault in 1989 was too remote (almost 2 years before her death). If she had reconciled and stayed with him, that cruelty had become stale. No proximate link between cruelty and death was established and hence accused was acquitted.
In Satvir Singh v State of Punjab (2001), court held that if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and had become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
Presumption as to Dowry Death
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 120 of BSA, 2023) creates a statutory presumption. When it is shown that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands, the Court shall presume that the husband or his relatives caused the dowry death. This presumption is mandatory in nature. However, it is rebuttable and the burden shifts to the accused to prove otherwise. The presumption applies only if the death occurs within seven years of marriage.
