Request Of Money By Husband For Getting Job For Himself With Assurance To Repay Cannot Come Within Definition Of ‘Dowry’- Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court held that request of money by a husband from his in-laws for getting job for himself with an assurance to repay the amount, cannot come within the definition of ‘dowry’.

The Court held thus in an appeal filed by a ma (appellant) who was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 498A, 304-B, 302, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A Single Bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo observed, “In the case in hand, the request for arranging money for getting a job was not there at the time of marriage. It was also assured by the appellant to repay such amount as soon as possible. There is nothing on record as to when these two letters Exts.5 and 8 were written. In my humble view, this request of money by the appellant to arrange a job for himself cannot come within the definition of ‘dowry’ as per section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.”

Advocate Mohammed Faradish appeared on behalf of the appellant while Addl. Standing Counsel Priyabrata Tripathy appeared on behalf of the respondent.

In this case, the marriage of complainant’s daughter was solemnized with the appellant and on account of domestic quarrel, the appellant and the deceased were remaining separately from other family members of the appellant in village Bada Simulia for four months prior to the lodging of F.I.R. after constructing a house there. In 1997, the informant got a message about the death of the deceased and hearing such news, he along with his brother came to the said village and found the deceased was lying dead in the house and the appellant was sitting by her side. When the informant asked the appellant about the cause of death of the deceased, he informed that the deceased consumed poison and died. However, he suspected that the appellant had killed the deceased after assaulting her.

An FIR was lodged which stated that at the time of marriage, as per demand from the side of bridegroom, all articles were given, but the demand of golden chain could not be fulfilled and it was assured that such demand would be fulfilled at a later stage. Since it could not be fulfilled, the in-laws, including the appellant were subjecting the deceased to torture and in connection with such torture, a meeting was convened in the gram panchayat on the application submitted by informant whereafter the deceased was taken back to her in-laws’ house and thereafter she came to stay with the appellant. It was further stated that on account of demand of gold chain, the appellant and his family members subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment and being unable to bear the torture, the deceased consumed poison and died. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session where the Trial Court framed charges against the appellant and the co-accused persons to which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and therefore, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to establish their guilt.

The High Court in the above regard noted, “… there is lack of clinching evidence regarding demand of a gold necklace from the side of bridegroom and that since such demand was not fulfilled, in connection with such demand, there was torture to the deceased by the appellant. ‘Soon before’ as appears in section 304-B of the I.P.C. is a relative term and it is not synonymous with ‘immediately before’. There must be a proximate link in existence between the facts of cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry and the death. The time-lag may differ from case to case.”

The Court said that if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.

“The demand for dowry should be the continuing cause for the death of the married women. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Every instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman”, added the Court.

The Court further said that even though the prosecution has proved that the deceased died within seven years of marriage and that her death was otherwise than under normal circumstances, since all the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B are not satisfied, the conviction of the appellant for such offence is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

“So far as the offence under section 498-A of the I.P.C. is concerned, not only the witnesses, but also the letter vide Ext.4, which was written one week prior to the death of the deceased, clearly indicates regarding cruelty on the deceased. … The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual and also depends upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. It need not be physical always. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case”, held the Court.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of IPC, and confirmed his conviction under Section 498-A of IPC.

Cause Title- Bhanu Charan Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Click here to read/download the Judgment