HC on Dowry Death: The need for urgent societal transformation and stringent legal measures cannot be overstated, for the dignity of women

The Rajasthan High Court expounded that "The need for urgent societal transformation and stringent legal measures cannot be overstated, for the dignity of women in Rajasthan—and indeed, across India—hinges on the dismantling of such archaic norms".

HC Bench overturned the acquittal of two individuals charged with dowry-related harassment and the murder of their daughter-in-law, Kaushalya.

Despite the Trial Court granting the benefit of doubt, the High Court found sufficient evidence, including witness testimonies and the suspicious cremation of the victim’s body. Emphasizing the persistence of dowry deaths, the Court concluded that the trial court had misread key evidence and allowed the appeal, resulting in the conviction of the accused.

On 03.10.2001, PW-17 Ramswaroop reported that his sister, Kaushalya, was married to Rajuram, son of Ramdin (the accused), and had been harassed by her in-laws over dowry for the past 7-8 months. Despite giving additional dowry during a ritual, Kaushalya was murdered by her in-laws, Ramdin and Vidyadevi, on 02.10.2001, who cremated her to destroy evidence.

A case was filed under Sections 304-B, 498-A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC), leading to the arrest of the accused. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the case was transferred to the Sessions Court. The accused denied the charges, and the Trial Court acquitted them on 11.04.2002, giving them the benefit of doubt. The State then appealed the acquittal.

On behalf of the accused-respondents, Mr. B.S. Rathore contended that the FIR does not mention any cruelty or dowry demands immediately before the death. The absence of such evidence, coupled with the lack of proof regarding recent dowry demands, takes the case outside the scope of the charges. He also argued that the accused have provided a full explanation of the allegations in their Section 313 CrPC statements. Furthermore, the deceased had informed her family about dowry demands long before her death and did not visit her maternal home afterward, raising doubts about the prosecution's narrative. He also pointed out the lack of medical evidence to support the claim of homicide or unnatural death.

The Court cited an ancient Shloka: “यत्र नास्तुपूज्यन्ते रमन्तेतत्र देवता:,” which translates to “Where women are honored, there the Gods are pleased,” emphasizing the importance of respecting women for societal well-being.

However, the Court noted that dowry deaths continue to plague Rajasthan, where dowry is often viewed as a commodity-based transaction, leading to violence and coercion against women. The Court called for societal transformation and stronger legal protections for women’s dignity.

The Court observed that the Trial Judge had disbelieved crucial witness testimonies and acquitted the accused by granting them the benefit of doubt. However, the Court found sufficient evidence, including testimonies and documents like Ex.P-5, indicating that the victim was subjected to dowry-related harassment over several months.

The Court emphasized that despite partial dowry fulfilment during the Balunda ritual, the victim continued to face harassment, as communicated to her family. This ongoing harassment created a “proximate and live link” to her death, satisfying the fourth ingredient of Section 304B.

The Court also referenced Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, stating that the term “soon before her death” should be assessed based on each case's circumstances. It agreed that the victim’s reports of harassment, even if two months prior to her death, were not too remote to invalidate the claim.

In this case, as the crime occurred in the matrimonial home, the Court observed that the burden of explaining the death’s circumstances lay with the in-laws, according to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Citing Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court highlighted that the burden of proof rests with the accused when facts are particularly within their knowledge.

In the present case, the Court observed that the accused cremated the victim hurriedly without informing her family or the police, which suggested an attempt to destroy evidence. The Court remarked, "The cremation of the dead body was conducted in the wee hours... without informing the parents or giving an intimation to the Police," highlighting the attempt to conceal the truth.

The Court referred to the State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram case, where the accused’s conduct in concealing the death was deemed crucial. It stated, “The disposal of dead body in a hush-hush manner clearly establish that the accused had done so with the sole object of concealing the real cause of the death.”

Regarding interference in an acquittal, the Court referred to Mallappa and Babu Sahebagouda, which held that appellate Courts should interfere only if the judgment suffers from “patent perversity” or a “misreading of material evidence.” The Court concluded that the trial court had misread key evidence, leading to an incorrect acquittal, thus paving the way for the conviction of the accused.

The Court, after reviewing the evidence and material on record, found that the acquittal of the accused-respondents under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 201 IPC was not sustainable in law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant-State was allowed, and the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 11.04.2002 passed by the Trial Court was quashed and set aside.

Picture Source :