⚖️ Supreme Court Judgment on Dowry Death
Topic:
Supreme Court Judgment on Dowry Death
Dowry death provisions explained and applied
📚 Delhi Law Academy Jaipur presents below for aspirants of RJS, DJS, PCS(J) and other Judicial Services a summarized version of a landmark Supreme Court Judgment relating to Dowry Death.
📝 Supreme Court Judgment on Dowry Death Summarized by Delhi Law Academy Jaipur
📌 Case: Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab [2001 SC]
A young mother of two kids ran into the rail in front of a running train to end her life as well as her miseries once and for all. She was driven to that action on account of the cruel treatment suffered by her at her nuptial home. But the locomotive instead of snuffing her life out in a trice, converted her into a veritable vegetable.
Her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 116 IPC read with Section 306 IPC, besides Section 498-A. The High Court made an alteration by substituting Section 306 with Section 304-B to be read with Section 116.
👩⚖️ Case Background
Tajinder Pal Kaur daughter of Narender Singh obtained B.A. degree and B.Ed. degree before her marriage. On 5.1.1992, she was given in marriage to Satvir Singh (A-1), a businessman, and thenceforth she was living in her husband’s house. Devinder Singh (A-2) and Paramjit Kaur (A-3) who are the parents of Satvir Singh were also living in the same house. Though dowry was given at the time of marriage the appellants started harassing the bride after about 4 or 5 months of the wedding for not giving a car and a house as part of the dowry. After about a year, a male child was born to her and about one and a half years thereafter, she gave birth to another male child.
In the month of November 1995, her father Narender Singh paid Rs. 20,000 to her husband Satvir Singh presumably for appeasing him so that he would desist from causing any harassment to Tejinder Pal Kaur.
The immediate cause for the tragic episode happened on the night of 16-6-1996. When food was served to Satvir Singh in the night, it was noticed that one of the items in the meals (salad) contained excessive salt. (According to PW 5 the salt was added to the salad by her mother-in-law). After tasting the salad, Satvir Singh became furious and he unleashed abuses on his wife and then he was profusely supported by his mother and later they were reinforced by his father. They went to the extent of suggesting to her “why not end your life in front of one of the trains as many such trains are running nearby”
📖 Legal Provisions and Court’s Analysis
On 21-6-1996 the distraught wife went to the extent of falling on the rail track before a running train. Perhaps she was inspired by the suggestion already given by her in-laws for taking such a drastic step. But her effort did not succeed. Though the train ran over her body she did not die then and there. Instead she sustained multiple injuries which included amputation of her hands, injuries on her skull and face, in addition to other injuries. The accident resulted in disfiguration of her face, dislocation of her skull, besides decapitation of her hands. She was rendered incapable of any physical activities. If she survived thereafter it was because of the excellent medical treatment given to her in the hospitals. But she died on 2-8-1996 i.e. after about 40 days of the incident.
It is in the background of the aforesaid facts that the three accused were charged under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 116 IPC.
⚖️ Section 304-B IPC: Dowry Death
304-B. Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
- Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
- Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
🔎 Court’s Interpretation
So it is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B is to be invoked. But it should have happened “soon before her death”. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such radius of time by employing the words “soon before her death” is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval which elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept “soon before her death”.
It is unfortunate that Section 304-B does not say “soon before the harassment” and instead the expression used is “soon before her death”. This leaves the court with no option but to analyse its application as it is. Hence the cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry should have been soon before her death.
📜 Section 498-A IPC
Section 498-A of the Penal Code recognises cruelty to woman by husband or his relatives and makes such cruelty punishable. The section reads thus:
“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section “cruelty” means—
- (a) any wilful 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 (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
- (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
⚖️ Court’s Final Observations and Conclusion
As per Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials:
- (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman.
- (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
- (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
- (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
From the above ingredients it is apparent that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would be attracted only when the prosecution proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment “soon before her death”.
📜 Dowry Act Definition
The word “dowry” in Section 304-B has to be understood as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961:
“In this Act ‘dowry’ means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly—
- by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
- by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties,
but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation I.— For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties.
Explanation II.— The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code.
🔎 Are Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC mutually exclusive?
A question has arisen as to whether a person charged and acquitted under Section 304-B can be convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC. The position of law is well settled that a person acquitted under Section 304-B can be convicted under Section 498-A IPC without charge being framed under it, if such a case is made out. The two sections are not mutually exclusive. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections.
⚖️ Supreme Court on Section 304-B IPC
The Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab observed:
“It is further contended that cruelty and harassment being essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, and the evidence led in the case having not been believed by the trial court in respect of the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the same evidence could not have been relied upon for the purpose of convicting the appellants under Section 304-B IPC. The submission of the learned counsel appears to be attractive but has no merit. Cruelty and harassment are ingredients of offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B. Under Section 498-A cruelty by itself amounts to an offence, whereas under Section 304-B it is the dowry death which is punishable and such dowry death must have occurred within seven years of marriage. Cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relatives for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry is a common essential for both the sections. Persons prosecuted for the offence under Section 304-B and acquitted can be convicted under Section 498-A without there being a charge under Section 498-A, if such a case is made out. Conviction under Section 498-A IPC without charge being therefor can also be done in view of Section 221 of the Code, if the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled.”
📌 Supreme Court on Need for Separate Charge
The provisions of Sections 221 and 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure make it permissible for a court to convict a person for an offence with which he is not charged if the evidence discloses commission of such an offence and no prejudice is caused to the accused thereby.
⚖️ Sentence & Punishment
Section 304-B provides that the minimum sentence shall be seven years which may extend to life imprisonment. Section 498-A provides imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. These provisions show the seriousness of the offence and the legislative intent to curb dowry-related cruelty and deaths.
Thus, courts have the responsibility to interpret and apply these provisions strictly in order to serve as a deterrent against the menace of dowry deaths in Indian society.
📚 Further Reading for Law Aspirants
Explore more useful resources from Delhi Law Academy to strengthen your preparation:
❓ FAQs — Dowry Death (Section 304B) & 498A
• Section 498A punishes cruelty by husband/relatives (up to 3 years).
• They are not mutually exclusive: the same facts may attract both sections — courts can convict under both when established.
• Practically, to avoid procedural issues it is advisable to frame charges under both sections; however no separate sentence need be awarded under 498A if substantive punishment is given under 304B.
Contact us
📍 Delhi Law Academy – Jaipur Branch
6C, Tower 2, Coaching Hub, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur – 302033
📞 Phone:
+91 9911916552
+91 8447285606
✉️ Email:
contactus@delhilawacademy.com