Chhoochhak Ceremony Gold Demand Is Not Dowry Demand: Supreme Court Quashes Husband’s Dowry Death Conviction
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside a husband’s conviction for dowry death while sustaining his conviction for cruelty, and directed that no further sentence be served as he had already undergone incarceration beyond the term imposed for the cruelty offence, with his bail bonds cancelled. The case concerned allegations that the deceased wife was harassed for a gold ring and chain after the birth of the couple’s child, during the customary chhoochhak ceremony, and that she and the infant were later found dead in a well. The Court held that, for the purpose of Section 304B IPC, a dowry demand must be linked to the marriage and not to a post-birth ceremony demand.
The husband and the deceased woman were married in November 1986. A male child was born to them in May 1988, after which a customary “chhoochhak” ceremony was performed. On November 24, 1988, the woman and the infant were found dead in a well. The next day, her father lodged a police complaint alleging that she had been harassed and tortured over demands for a gold ring and a gold chain linked to the chhoochhak ceremony. The prosecution invoked Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial court convicted the husband under Sections 498A and 304B and imposed sentences of imprisonment and fine, and the High Court later upheld the convictions and sentences.
Before the Supreme Court, the husband contended that the prosecution evidence did not establish either offence beyond reasonable doubt, referring to prosecution depositions alongside defence evidence. In the alternative, he argued that Section 304B was not attracted on the prosecution case. The State maintained that the demand for the gold ornaments at the post-birth ceremony was proved, and also pointed to the circumstance that the woman and child were found dead in a well.
In the High Court’s recorded analysis, it was noted that the prosecution case was that the woman was tortured when the demand was not met, that she was not sent to her parental home or permitted to meet her family, and that two prosecution witnesses stated she was not kept in good condition and that they heard her weeping at night.
The Court recorded: “We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar.” It then referred to the High Court’s assessment of the prosecution case: “We note that while affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 304B as well as Section 498A IPC, the High Court analyzed as under:”
The Court placed on record the High Court’s finding on the demand and the alleged cruelty: “In the present case, the prosecution has proved the fact that there was demand of golden ring and gold chain at the time of Choochhak and when the same was not fulfilled, the appellant-accused started torturing the deceased and she was not even sent to her parental house and was also not even permitted to meet them.” It also recorded the witnesses’ account relied upon there: “Nainu Khan (PW-5) and Munir Khan (PW-13) also stated that she was not being kept in a good condition and they heard the voice of weeping of the deceased in the night.”
On the scope of “dowry demand” for Section 304B IPC in the facts alleged, the Court stated: “When the above is juxtaposed with paragraph 21 of Satvir Singh (supra), 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 further stated: “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.”
On that basis, the Court recorded its conclusion on Section 304B: “In view of the above reasoning, we find that the invocation of Section 304B against the accused was not justified.” It then recorded the consequence: “Hence, the judgment of the High Court as well as the Sessions Court convicting the appellant under Section 304B is set aside.”
On Section 498A IPC, the Court stated: “As far as the conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the IPC is concerned, we find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt, the offences which are delineated under the said Section.” It added: “On a juxtaposition of the ingredients of the said section with the evidence on record, we find that the High Court was justified in affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the Act.”
The Court recorded: “The appellant has undergone rigorous imprisonment for five months longer than what has been imposed on him under Section 498A of the IPC.” It then stated: “Consequently, since his incarceration has been much more than what had been imposed by the Sessions Court, and was affirmed by the High Court, we find that it is not just and proper to impose any further sentence on the appellant herein.”
The Court directed: “Consequently, since his incarceration has been much more than what had been imposed by the Sessions Court, and was affirmed by the High Court, we find that it is not just and proper to impose any further sentence on the appellant herein. Consequently, the appellant’s conviction under Section 304B IPC is set aside but the conviction under Section 498A IPC is sustained. Since the appellant is on suspension of sentence and bail, the bail bonds stand cancelled.”
“The appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, AOR; Mr. Ankit Acharya, Adv.; Mr. Ayush Jain, Adv.; Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv.; Ms. Ritu Chaudhary, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G.; Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR; Ms. Awanitika, Adv.
Case Title: BABOO KHAN VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).1203/2016
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna; Justice R. Mahadevan
