'Sensitise Future Generation About Equality In Marriage' : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Tackle Dowry Evil & Enforce Prohibition

While quashing an acquittal of a husband and her mother convicted for dowry death and cruelty, the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to issue general directions to tackle the issue of dowry deaths in society.

In passing the order, the Court termed dowry as a social evil because of which a 20 year old had to give up on her life: "In this case, a young girl, barely of twenty, when she was sent away from the world of the living by way of a most heinous and painful death, met this unfortunate end simply because her parents did not have the material means and resources to satisfy the wants or the greed of her family by matrimony. A coloured television, a motorcycle and Rs. 15,000/- is all she was apparently worth of." 

The Court lamented that when it comes to the giving and taking of dowry, this practice, unfortunately, has deep roots in society, and hence, a social change is needed for the effective implementation of the law.

"To ensure that the change brought in is able to make an impact on the efforts to eradicate this evil, it is to be ensured that the future generation, youngsters of today, are informed and made aware about this evil practice and the necessity to eschew it," the Court observed.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh passed a slew of directions, including a direction to all High Courts to take a stock of the pending dowry death and cruelty cases for earliest disposal, due appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers in all States, and appropriate training to police and judicial officers to teach them about the social and psychological implications of such cases. 

Before issuing directions, the Court acknowledged how one has to oscillate between the ineffectiveness of the dowry death and cruelty law and its misuse, which continues to create judicial tension and requires an urgent solution.

It relied on Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, in which the then Justice R.S. Pathak observed how the Dowry Prohibition Act(DPA) continues to be ineffective and how the Court, taking note of the ineffective implementation, had issued directions, but the annual statistics continue to paint a grim picture. 

"While on the one hand, the law suffers from ineffectiveness and so, the malpractice of dowry remains rampant, on the other hand, the provisions of this Act have also been used to ventilate ulterior motives along with Section 498-A, IPC. This oscillation between ineffectiveness and misuse creates a judicial tension which needs urgent resolution.

While this urgent resolution cannot be stressed upon enough, at the same time it is necessary to be recognized that particularly when it comes to the giving and taking of dowry, this practice unfortunately has deep roots in society, hence, it not being a matter of swift change, instead needs concentrated effort on part of all the involved parties, be it Legislature, law enforcement, Judiciary, civil society organizations etc."

The directions: 

1. It is directed that States and even the Union Government consider changes as are necessary to the educational curriculum across levels, reinforcing the constitutional position that parties to a marriage are equal to one another and one is not subservient to the other as is sought to be established by giving and taking of money and or articles at the time of marriage.

2. The law provides for the appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers in States. It is to be ensured that these officers are duly deputed, aware of their responsibilities and given the necessary wherewithal to carry out the duties entrusted to them.

The contact details (name, official phone number and email ID) of such an officer designated to this position are disseminated adequately by the local authorities ensuring awareness of citizens of the area;

3. The police officials, as also the judicial officers dealing with such cases, should periodically be given training, equipping them to fully appreciate the social and psychological implications which are often at the forefront of these cases. This would also ensure a sensitivity of the concerned officials towards genuine cases versus those which are frivolous and abusive of the process of law;

4.The High Courts are requested to take stock of the situation, ascertain the number of cases pending dealing with Section 304-B, 498-A from the earliest to the latest for expeditious disposal: "it is not lost on us that the instant case began in 2001 and could only be concluded 24 years later by way of this judgment. It is but obvious that there would be many such similar cases."

5  we also recognize that many people today are/have been outside the education fold, and that it is equally, if not more so, important to reach them and make accessible and comprehensible, the relevant information regarding the act of giving or taking of dowry as also other acts sometimes associated therewith, other times independent thereof (mental and physical cruelty) is an offence in law.

The District Administration along with the District Legal Services Authorities, by engaging and involving civil society groups and dedicated social activists, is requested to conduct workshops/awareness programs at regular intervals. This is to ensure change at the grassroot level. 

Brief facts

To briefly state the facts, a young girl, Nasrin, was married to Ajmal Beg. Over the years, the husband Beg, and family members continued to demand a coloured television, a motorcycle and Rs. 15,000 from her and her father. In 2001, the husband and his family members allegedly assaulted the deceased and before any help could arrive, the husband poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.

When the maternal uncle arrived, they found her body burned, dead. A first information report was filed. The Trial Court convicted the husband and her mother under Sections 304B(dowry death), 489A(husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(penalty for giving or taking dowry) and 4(penalty for demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and they were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. T

The two convicts preferred an appeal, and the Allahabad High Court acquitted them of all charges by an order dated October 7, 2003.

The High Court disregarded the testimony of the maternal uncle, stating that he was not an eyewitness to the incident, amongst other findings. Against this order, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Findings of the Supreme Court 

Perusing the evidence and the witnesses before the Court, the bench concluded that the prosecution's witnesses' testimonies of the father and mother of the deceased, the maternal uncle, were consistent that there was constant harassment regarding dowry. In fact, the material uncle had testified that he had seen the accused persons running away from the crime scene.

"The position of law being clear, as referred supra let us now consider the evidence. The demand for dowry, and in particular, a motorcycle, a colour TV and Rs.15,000/- in cash, have been established beyond reasonable doubt, with such a version not to have been shaken at all. Equally so, in no manner could it be disputed that the said demand had been reiterated just a day prior to the deceased passing away. This ties in with the fact that PW1(father) and PW2 (maternal uncle), both have testified to the effect of continuous harassment of the deceased."

Considering the unblemished evidence on harassment and dowry death, the Court considered that the legal requirement of "soon before her death" of Section 304IPC, as explained in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana(2010), is met and the presumption of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act comes into picture. 

In Ashok Kumar, the Supreme Court said that the expression “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 reasonable, if not direct, nexus between her death and the dowry-related cruelty or harassment inflicted on her.

On the regard to the maternal uncle's testimony, the bench found that the High Court was wrong in doing so because the maternal uncle never said that he saw the act being committed. Instead, he had said that he saw the body lying burnt.

However, questions were raised as to the testimony of the deceased's mother, who testified that the deceased was happy in her matrimonial house. On this, the Court said that it can't be read out of context and that the mother had described that after the deceased was given assurance by her father to return to her home.

There was also issue raised that the High Court considered her statement that the demand of dowry was not prior to marriage but after it. On this, the Court clarified that the Dowry Prohibition Act makes no distinction between demand made prior or after marriage. 

"The evidence of all the witnesses, including the mother, is consistent on the demand of dowry and both PW1 and PW2 have also testified to the continued harassment that was endured by the deceased. The High Court disbelieved the evidence of PW2 but as we have observed above, his testimony cannot be disregarded in its entirety. This statement alone cannot help the case of Ajmal and Jamila. When the harassment for dowry is proved and so is the fact that such harassment was made soon before her death, then a mere statement of one of the witnesses that she was apparently happy, would not save the Respondents from guilt"

Setting aside the High Court's order, the bench remarked: "Yet another reason given by the High Court for acquittal was that since Ajmal and his family members were poor, they could not have made such a demand because even if they managed to procure the same, they had no means of maintaining the said goods. Suffice it to say that this reason does not appeal to reason. We may also observe that, while reversing the findings of facts returned by the Trial Court, the High Court has not assigned any reasons explicitly holding such findings to be erroneous/perverse or illegal."

As for the quantum of sentence, while the husband is sentenced to life imprisonment, since the mother-in-law's age is 94 years, the Court refrained from incarcerating her. 

A copy of the judgment is to be circulated electronically to the Registrar of the High Court to place it before the Chief Justices and solicit directions in this regard. Also, the judgment to be shared with the Chief Secretaries of all States.

The matter will be heard after four weeks for compliance.

Case Details: STATE OF U.P. v. AJMAL BEG ETC.|CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 132-133 OF 2017

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1209