Sensitise Future Generation On Equality In Marriage To Eradicate Dowry “Evil” | Supreme Court Issues Directions To Curb Dowry Deaths And Strengthen Dowry Prohibition Enforcement
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the acquittal and restored the conviction of a husband and his mother for dowry death and cruelty, and also issued general directions intended to address dowry-related deaths in society. The Court described dowry as a social evil and linked the death of a woman, barely 20, to the inability to meet demands raised in the marriage, noting that she was treated as being “worth” a coloured television, a motorcycle and ₹15,000. The allegations were that she faced repeated dowry demands, was assaulted and threatened, and was then set on fire in her matrimonial home. In its order, the Bench directed the husband to surrender within four weeks to undergo the sentence, while declining to incarcerate the 94-year-old mother-in-law despite upholding her conviction.
The deceased woman was married to the husband and lived at her matrimonial home with him and his mother. The State appealed against the High Court judgment that had set aside the trial court’s conviction and recorded an acquittal.
As recorded in the judgment, the prosecution case was that the husband, the mother-in-law and other family members raised repeated demands for a colour television, a motorcycle and ₹15,000 from the deceased and her father (PW1), and that the husband reiterated this demand to PW1 on 4 June 2001. It was alleged that on 5 June 2001 the deceased was assaulted and threatened with death if the demands were not met, kerosene was poured on her, she was set on fire, and she died. PW2 informed PW1, who reached the spot and lodged the FIR; after investigation, a challan was filed for trial.
At trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. The defence did not lead evidence and, in statements under Section 313 CrPC, asserted false implication due to enmity. The evidence discussed included PW1 and PW6 on alleged demands and prior visits, PW2’s account of reaching the scene and seeing persons fleeing, and post-mortem evidence attributing death to extensive burns (asphyxia and shock).
The proceedings invoked Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The High Court, while acquitting, noted that PW1 and PW6 were not eyewitnesses and assessed the reliability of PW2 and PW6 with reference to omissions and inconsistencies.
The Court opened by recording the nature of the incident and its social context: “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.” It stated: “Evil, unless eradicated, can never be contained.”
Addressing the wider issue of dowry, the Court recorded: “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.”
It added: “…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.” On awareness, it stated: “(a) 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.” Referring to Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, it recorded: “… Young women of education, intelligence and character do not set fire to themselves to welcome the embrace of death unless provoked and compelled to that desperate step by the intolerance of their misery.”
On the legal requirements and their application, the Court stated: “In our view, the expression “soon before her death” cannot be given a restricted or a narrower meaning.” It recorded: “…there should be a reasonable, if not direct, nexus between her death and the dowry-related cruelty or harassment inflicted on her.”
Turning to proof, it stated: “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 and PW 2, both have testified to the effect of continuous harassment of the deceased.” It also recorded: “…the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 came into effect… and went unrebutted by the defence, since no evidence was led by them.”
On witness assessment and the High Court’s approach, the Court stated: “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.” It recorded: “Suffice it to say that this reason does not appeal to reason.” It further stated: “…the High Court has not assigned any reasons explicitly holding such findings to be erroneous/perverse or illegal.”
The Court allowed the State’s appeals, restored the trial court’s conviction of both the husband and the mother-in-law, and maintained the husband’s sentence. It directed the husband to surrender within four weeks to serve that sentence.
For the mother-in-law, the Court took note that she was 94 and stated that sentencing an elderly convict requires humanitarian consideration because imprisonment may be inhumane given physical frailty, medical dependency and inability to endure custody, implicating dignity. On that basis, while restoring her conviction, it declined to incarcerate her.
The Court issued the following directions:
“(a) 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. As such, it is directed that States and even the Union Government consider changes as are necessary to the educational curricula 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;”
“(b) The law provides for the appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers40 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;”
“(c) 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;”
“(d) 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. 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; and”
“(e) in furtherance of (a) above, 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.”
“Let a copy of this judgment be circulated electronically to the Registrar General of the High Courts who are requested to place the same before the Learned Chief Justices and solicit directions in accordance with the above, and also, to the Chief Secretaries of all States for necessary follow up action.”
“While the main appeals are disposed of, so far as these directions are concerned, to ensure compliance thereof, as also issue any other directions as may be necessary, list this matter after four weeks. States are requested to file affidavits indicating the position qua the direction given under (b) hereinabove. The High Courts shall do the same for (d). Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Case Title: State Of U.P. Versus Ajmal Beg Etc.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1435
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 132-133 Of 2017
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
