Interpreting Section 304-B IPC the apex court said that if courts are to insist on such agreements, then virtually no offender could be booked or convicted
"Demand neither conceives nor would conceive of any agreement. If for convicting any offender, agreement for dowry is to be proved, hardly any offenders would come under the clutches of law. When Section 304-B refers to 'demand of dowry', it refers to the demand of property or valuable security as referred," the apex court observed.
A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma passed the observation while dismissing the arguments of the defence in the case of Prem Kanwar, who was convicted by the Rajasthan High Court for causing the death of her daughter-in-law over dowry demands.
The accused claimed that there was no evidence to prove that there was any agreement for dowry and also submitted that the victim had committed suicide by setting herself ablaze.
Though the Sessions Court acquitted the accused, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused for murdering her daughter-in-law over dowry. It, however, confirmed the acquittal of the victim's husband and another relative.
Aggrieved by the conviction, Kanwar filed an appeal in the apex court.
Rejecting the defence argument, the apex court said the offence alleged against the accused is under Section 304-B IPC which makes "demand of dowry" itself punishable.
"The argument that there is no demand of dowry, in the present case, has no force. In cases of dowry deaths and suicides, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence. That could be either direct or indirect," the apex court said.
According to the apex court, Section 4 of the Act, (Dowry Prohibition) was also amended by means of Act 63 of 1984, under which it is an offence to demand dowry directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride.
"The word 'agreement' referred to in Section 2 has to be inferred on the facts and circumstances of each case. The interpretation that the accused seek, that conviction can only be if there is agreement for dowry, is misconceived. This would be contrary to the mandate and object of the Act," the bench said.
The apex court said it was evident from postmortem report that the victim was beaten up badly resulting in the fracture of her skull bone after which she was set on fire to make it look like a case of suicide.
"In the case of burning, the fracture of skull is not a necessary corollary but in the present case the skull bones were broken. Therefore, the fact remains that she was killed before death. Therefore, the High Court was justified in holding that the Sessions Judge erroneously concluded that it was a case of suicide," the apex court observed upholding the conviction
"Loved reading this piece by Shree.?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Tags : Family Law
Views 447 Report
