Dowry Deaths : How Supreme Court Has Repeatedly Raised Concerns Over Continuing Dowry Menace

The death of Twisha Sharma in Bhopal, which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu cognisance of allegations of institutional bias and procedural lapses and a CBI investigation, and the death of Deepika Nagar in Greater Noida amid allegations of dowry harassment have once again brought public attention to the issue of deaths of married women in their matrimonial homes.Even as investigations in these cases continue, the Supreme Court, over the past two years, has delivered a number of significant rulings on how Courts should deal with cases involving dowry deaths and domestic cruelty.Broadly, these judgment highlight three themes –i) Courts must exercise extreme caution while granting bail in dowry death cases.ii) Statutory presumption in favour of the prosecution plays a critical role where a woman dies unnaturally within seven years of marriage. iii) Despite legal reforms, dowry remains deeply entrenched in Indian society.Bail in dowry death casesIn recent decisions, the Supreme Court has emphasised that courts should not mechanically grant bail in dowry death cases.In Mahesh Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 452, the Court cancelled the bail granted to a husband accused in a dowry death case. A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi described dowry deaths as a serious social problem and held that courts must be careful that bail orders do not create an impression that crimes against women are being treated lightly.The Court stressed that where a woman dies in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage and there are allegations of dowry harassment, courts must keep in mind Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which corresponds to the earlier Section 113B of the Evidence Act.The same bench took a similar approach in Chetram Verma v. State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 141, and Lal Muni Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 298. In both cases, it criticised High Court orders granting bail without adequately considering the seriousness of the allegations, post-mortem findings and the statutory presumption relating to dowry deaths.In Chetram Verma, the Court described the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail as one of the most shocking and disappointing bail orders it had seen. It observed that a court deciding bail in a dowry death case must consider the nature of the offence, the punishment prescribed, the relationship between the accused and the deceased, the place of occurrence, the medical evidence and the statutory presumption under Section 118 BSA.Similarly, in Shabeen Ahmed v State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to a father-in-law and mother-in-law. The Court observed that when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within a short period of marriage, the judiciary must display heightened vigilance. It warned that granting bail despite evidence suggesting direct involvement in dowry harassment and violence could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.Evidentiary principles in dowry death cases The Supreme Court in its decisions has repeatedly emphasised on the statutory presumptions applicable in dowry death cases.Under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, previously Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume that a husband or his relatives caused a dowry death if it is shown that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death and the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage.The presumption does not automatically establish guilt. However, once foundational facts are proved, it places a burden on the accused to rebut the presumption.The Supreme Court repeatedly faulted High Courts for ignoring this provision while granting bail (in Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh @ Prince, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1150, Chetram Verma v. State of UP, and Lal Muni Devi v. State of Bihar). It has held that the presumption becomes especially relevant where medical evidence points towards strangulation, physical injuries or other suspicious circumstances.The Court has also clarified how convictions can be sustained in cases involving deaths inside matrimonial homes.In Gour Acharjee v. State of Tripura & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 538, the Court upheld the conviction of a husband for murder and cruelty after finding that the death was homicidal and not suicidal.A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan relied on medical evidence showing multiple ante-mortem injuries and the absence of signs typically associated with suicidal hanging.The judgment also highlighted the importance of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Court explained that once the prosecution establishes that the death was homicidal and occurred inside the matrimonial home, the inmates of the house must offer a plausible explanation. The husband's failure to...

Dowry Deaths : How Supreme Court Has Repeatedly Raised Concerns Over Continuing Dowry Menace

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Dowry Deaths : How Supreme Court Has Repeatedly Raised Concerns Over Continuing Dowry Menace

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers