Demand Of Gold At Child's 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry Demand: Supreme Court Quashes Husband's Dowry Death Conviction

The Supreme Court recently quashed a man's conviction for dowry death, holding that demand of gold ornaments at the time of child's Chhoochhak ceremony cannot be considered as a dowry demand.

The Court observed that for the purpose of Section 304B IPC, dowry demand implies any demand of property or security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage, not at the time of birth of the couple's child.

"we find that the said demand made for gold ornaments at the time of the Chhoochhak ceremony cannot be considered to be a dowry demand. It could have been a demand which was made not in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but at the time of the birth of the child, whereas a dowry demand within the meaning and scope of 304B IPC should be any property or security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage" said a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan.

In taking the view, the bench relied on the decision in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) 8 SCC 633, where the Supreme Court observed,

"there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is at any time after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are in connection with the marriage of the said parties. This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of dowry. Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."

Briefly put, the accused-appellant married his wife (deceased) in November 1986. In May 1988, a male child was born to the couple, and a customary ceremony called 'chhoochhak' was performed. On 24.11.1988, the deceased and the child were found dead in a well. 

The father of the deceased got registered an FIR, alleging harassment and torture of the deceased over demands for a gold ring and chain at the chhoochhak ceremony. Chargesheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. 

The Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under S.304B and to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under S.498A, to run concurrently. In 2015, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the conviction and sentences under both Section 304B and Section 498A. Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court.

Vide its order, the top Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 304B IPC but upheld that under Section 498A IPC. Since he had undergone 5 months more custody than the sentence of 1 year imposed under Section 498A IPC, the Court deemed it fit to not impose any further sentence. The appellant having been granted relief of suspension of sentence and bail earlier, the bail bonds were cancelled.

Appearance: Advocate Pratiksha Sharma (for appellant); Standing Counsel Nidhi Jaswal (for State)

Case Title: BABOO KHAN v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN, Crl.A. No. 001203 / 2016

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1194

Click here to read order