All bridal deaths not dowry deaths: High Court

Holding that parents of a deceased bride are often emotionally so attached to their child that they cannot perceive that their child could at all have committed suicide and thus have a tendency to push all cases of suicide into one of alleged dowry-death, the Delhi High Court in a recently reported decision Narender Singh Arora v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) (2010) 173 DLT 244 has upheld the decision of the trial court wherein the court rejected the argument of parents that the case was one of dowry death and held that it was a suicide simpliciter by the deceased bride. 

The High Court inter alia observed as under;

5. This case is a reflection of mentality which is now taking grip of parents of a deceased wife in the criminal cases. Whenever a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage at in-laws’ house, whatever be the cause of death, the in-laws must be hanged. This case also shows how truth is losing significance because of the ego of the litigants to see that in-laws should be hanged.

6. Suicide is a known phenomenon of human nature. Suicides are committed by living human beings for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life. Some are not able to cope up with the circumstances in which they are placed. Some commit suicide because of frustration of not achieving the desired goals. There are many cases where students commit suicide because they failed to achieve certain percentage of marks. Some commit suicide because they are not able to retain top position, some commit suicide because they are not able to cope with the demands of life. Some commit suicide because they suffer sudden loss, some commit suicide out of fear of being caught. There are various reasons for which suicides are committed by men and women. All suicides are unnatural deaths. Suicide is a complex phenomenon. One, who commits suicide, is not alive to disclose as to what was going on in his or her mind when he or she committed suicide. There is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her in-laws’ house or at her parents’ house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her in-laws.

7. Normally in-laws are convicted on the testimonies of parents of the girl who, in a fit of anger or because they had lost their daughter, are not prepared to believe that their daughter could commit suicide for any other reason. Fortunately, in this case, the deceased was in the habit of writing letter to her parents when she was living at her in-laws’ house and to her husband when she was living in her parents’ house and these letters were produced before the trial court. The trial court went through these letters and after going through all the letters written by the deceased, preferred to believe the circumstances prevalent between deceased and her in-laws, as reflected by the letters instead of believing the testimony of father of the girl and other relatives of the girl who wanted the court to believe that it was a dowry death. The learned trial court extensively quoted these letters. A perusal of these letters would show that the deceased was in the habit of writing every minuscule thing happening in the family of her in-laws to her father. She was in love with her father and in her letters gave details of happenings in the family of her in-laws to her father. She had written to the extent that she had to go to market by Rickshaw and that her in-laws were not well-off. She had written how her bhabi used to behave cleverly and wanted to separate from the house, how her bhabi used to behave; how her father-in-law used to behave, who were the servants in the family, how they used to cook, what her bhabhi did at the dinner table, how she managed to take bigger share of chicken and all trivial things. The learned trial court concluded that girl who was writing to her father about each and every circumstance of her matrimonial home to such minute details, could not have held back any information from her father if she was harassed on account of dowry or any dowry demand had been made to her. I consider that the trial court rightly put greater reliance on the letters written by the deceased right up to the time of her death to her parents and rightly rejected the oral testimony of her father and other family members who wanted the court to believe that she was being harassed on account of dowry demands. It is well known maxim that men may speak lies but the circumstances do not. The letters written by the deceased is her own testimony in respect of what kind of life she was leading. This testimony of her is unimpeachable and most reliable testimony because it was given by her when there was no shadow of any litigation between the two and relations were normal. The testimony given by her father is not normal testimony. Her father and other family members who deposed in the court testified after death of Arveen and their testimony is coloured with the loss they suffered due to sudden death of the daughter little realizing that she committed suicide not because of dowry demands but because of her fragile and sensitive nature which is reflected from the letters written by her. The letters reflect that she was in deep love with her husband, her husband was also in deep love with her. It looks she was not getting all those facilities at her in-laws’ house to which she was used to and accustomed at her parents’ house. The letters do not reflect any kind of ill-treatment being meted out to her either at the hands of her husband or at the hands of her in-laws. The letters only reflect the usual day-to-day hiccups which a newly married couple has to undergo. I consider that the learned trial court relied upon the best evidence in order to come to a just and right conclusion whether it was a case of dowry death or it was a case of simple suicide and rightly acquitted the accused persons for the offences under Section 304B/302/498A read with Section 34 IPC.

8. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court did not look into the theory of murder of the girl though charge of murder was there. In this case, the death had taken place by hanging. There were ligature marks around the neck of deceased. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the ligature mark was continuous on the neck without a break and if it were a case of hanging, the ligature mark would not have been continuous and there would have been a break in the ligature mark. It is submitted that it was a case of manual strangulation and a case of murder. This theory was also examined by the learned trial court. The trial court had referred to medical jurisprudence and drawn a table showing differences between a suicidal death by hanging and a homicidal death by strangulation and came to a conclusion that there was no evidence of a homicidal death. The learned trial court also noted that to the doctor who conducted postmortem, no questions were put suggesting that this was a case of murder and not a suicidal death. Even otherwise, except the ligature marks, there was no other external injuries, no mark of struggle and no other evidence to show that it was a homicidal death. To my view, the learned trial court rightly came to conclusion that it was a suicidal death. I find no force in this revision petition. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.

Have a look at the decision.

Routine implication of Husband's in-laws for dowry allegations incorrect: High Court

This decision might come as a sigh of relief to the so-called dowry-harassed husbands. Holding that there is a reckless tendency for estranged wives to implicate the in-laws for allegations of dowry and noting the observation of other judges in this regard, the Delhi High Court in a recent decision has quashed the order of the lower court directing framing of charges for dowry and other cases against the relatives of the husband who had been living separately. 

The High Court observed inter alia as under;

18. In the light of the aforesaid proposition if one examines the authorities cited by the learned Senior Counsel one cannot but agree that the proposition of law which is enunciated in all these cases is that invariably whenever matrimonial relations have turned sour there is a tendency on the part of the complainant whether it is done by her of her own free will or at the instigation of her parents, brothers, sisters or even legal advice to make all kinds of wild and reckless allegations against the entire family of the husband.

19. By such a conduct not only the gravity of the offence against the husband who is the main accused gets diluted, even the parents in law or other relative who are not ordinarily living in a joint family are enroped and weakened because she loses on her credibility. It is in this background that in Mukesh Rani's case (supra), the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that

“whenever there is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife for the fault of husband other relations of the husband that is the brothers, sisters, parents are also roped in the litigation on the allegation of demand of dowry, whether they are living jointly or separate and sometimes even the parents who are aged 80 to 90 years and are unable to walk or talk and the sisters living at far off places in the matrimonial house are involved.”

20. The learned Judge had shown the concern of the Court that the provisions of Section 498A/304B IPC and the presumptions which are permitted u/s 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 by the legislature in its wisdom, for the protection of women, have been put to greater misuse by the girl‟s side than to the actual use.

21. Similar is the observation in Anu Gill’s case by the learned Single Judge of our own High Court wherein the proceedings against the sisters in law themselves were quashed by the High Court. It is not correct on the part of the learned Magistrate to observe that there were no allegations against the sister in laws in Anu Gill‟s case and therefore, the case was distinguishable. On the contrary, admittedly there were allegations against the sister in law which was considered to be totally vague, unworthy of credence by the Court. The allegations which were made by the complainant in Anu Gill’s case was that the in-laws of the complainant had demanded various gold items apart from a sum of Rs.11 lacs from the complainant to meet the requirement of the cash expenses for the “chuchak” ceremony of Anu Gill by the parents of the husband.

22. The nature of allegations in the two cases are bound to be different and merely because a generic term of 'in-laws' was used, it did not mean that the complainant in the reported case did not make allegations against Anu Gill who would also form part of 'in–laws'.

23. Another learned Single Judge of our own High Court in case titled Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand 2003 (11) DMC 328 has again echoed the same sentiments of the Court that though the provision in question has been made by the good intentions of the legislature but implementation has left a very bad taste and it has become counter productive as there is a growing tendency amongst women to perpetuate an action against the parents in law, relatives irrespective of the fact whether they are minor school going children, distant relatives. Because of the FIR having been registered against them, they are made to run for protection of their liberty.

24. In the light of the aforesaid concern which the different Judges of different High Courts have shown from time to time, one thing is very clear that as and when the relations between husband and wife get strained, then allegations are levelled not only against the husband but all his relatives with a view to teach him a lesson.

25. I have purposely not referred to all the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner because they are also echoing almost the same sentiments.

26. Coming back to the facts of the present case, I feel that this is precisely what has happened in the instant case also that although the marriage had taken place in the month of June, 2000, but the relations got strained may be on account of alleged illegal demands having been made by the husband or the relatives who were ordinarily living with him in a joint family but certainly it is highly improbable to assume that the married sisters of the husband of the complainant who got married much prior to the marriage of the complainant and were living in their own matrimonial homes would come down simultaneously to the matrimonial home of the complainant and subject her to demand of dowry and the consequent cruelty. Therefore, on this ground itself, I feel that the charge against the present petitioners is not prima facie made out nor is any 'grave suspicion' to have summoned such an offence available on record to put them to trial.

29. I cannot refrain from mentioning that in a case of this nature, the Court has to be very sensitive and it should not get swayed by emotions which the complainant may be suffering from with a view to put persons or relatives who are totally unconnected with the incident to the facing of the trial in itself in present times is a great deal of punishment especially in the light of the fact that the same continues endlessly for years together on account of heavy load on the learned MM.

Have a look at the decision.

Harsher dowry laws on the anvil: Going from bad to worse

Looks like the legislature is going really out of its mind. When the entire nation is crying fowl of the stringent provisions of matrimonial laws and pointing out to their growing abuse with even Supreme Court agreeing all together, the legislative branch of the country looks fully prepared to embark on a Radical Feminist movement. A great day for the country indeed.

As Times of India reports [click here for the full article], the nation should be prepared to find its men looking for more lawyers even before they marry and get their acts straight. Thanks to the recommendations of the National Commission for Women, we are all set to face a backlash on the legal front. The Commission, which it seems looks only at the rural areas and recommends to make harsher laws to save, according to them, the exploited rural women, seems to forget that the laws equally apply to the well-informed (too well I suppose) women, which the article rights quotes the Delhi High Court to state, that Section 498A was being used "to convert failed marriages into a crime and people are using this as a tool to extract as much monetary benefit as possible." I am pretty sure of the same being true.

But then we Indians sometimes wonder what are we made of that we find ourselves to chose such law makers that seems to do so well when they shut their hands in inactivity and let the rest of the country do their jobs but when it comes to action from their perspective, they seem to find themselves atleast a 100 years back and hand out laws like reservation, dowry menace and all to us. The inactivity on the part of enforcement of laws such as Sati-prohibition, child-marriage etc. does not concern them and almost every fortnight we find such incidents being reported in the newspapers, but falling in deaf ears of the people concerned.

I was simply shocked when the Hon'ble HRD Minister (just on the lines of his predecssor, who was accused of saffronizing the national education) handed out the worst dictum of the decade; more reservation. The issue has not settled still with the Supreme Court incumbent upon the matter, but it surely goes on a long way to show that such ideas are in fact the outcome of 'ivory-castle-day-dreaming'. I simply do not understand why these law-makers do not go to the masses to find out their problems but simply shut their doors once elected. How do they expect to know the problems of the people they are making laws for when they themselves have never faced them nor make any attempts to understand them.

And the best part is that when the masses cry fowl, they even seem to stuff their ears more with words of their sycophants and ill-informed advisors. I would really like to praise Mr. Lalu Yadav here, who knowing very well that he was heading a market-governed ministry of railways, handed out the decision making to the better informed and engrossed IAS officials, who turned it out to a profit making entity, instead of poking his own nose into it. Results at the national level would be much better if the other ministers atleast listen to those serving the bureaucratic lobbies. After all, it is the profession which employs the best brains of India, then why stifle their latent under the hands of unwise, if not illiterate ministers?

The recent idea behind a more stringent dowry law seems to be no different from the rest; cut off from the ground-realities. I hope there is some wiser mortal somewhere in the chain who is aware of what devastating effect this change would bring and cuts the nip in the bud. But then in this country, anything and everything is possible and so I will not be shocked to find that this proposal does become the law. Still hoping though ...

Does a marriage gift constitute dowry?

This newspiece does lead to curiosity. This recent SLP admitted by the Supreme Court asks the question, "does a marriage gift constitute dowry". [click here to read the background] I am quiet unsure as to why this petition came up to be admitted for this implies there must have been a 'substantial question of law' involved in the matter, whereas Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 removes any doubts to that regard.

This Section 2 reads; "Definition of "dowry". In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by a other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or after the marriage us consideration for 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 declare 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." [click to see the entire Act]

Therefore, the gifts in cash or kind do not constitute dowry if the intention behind giving those gifts is not to secure the marriage. In an awareness-spreading note, another lawyer submits the same view point.

Nonetheless I am anticipating a legal battle for the use of term 'customary gift' may be crucial. Like, if it is a custom in the areas to give a gift at the time of the marriage and without the gift marriage cannot take place, it may well be a compulsion on the part of one family to give the gift, which should technically qualify as dowry. It would therefore be a question more of evidence than law but still, it a trial worth watching.