The connection between demand of dowry , harassment based on the demand and date of death.

The offence of dowry death has been inserted in the IPC as section 304B by the dowry prohibition (Amendment) Act , 1986 which intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand. The offence is in a way fiction of law, whereby the offence of dowry death is deemed to have been committed if certain set of conditions are satisfied in a given case. These conditions are four in number, namely;

1. Death of a woman caused by burns, bodily injury, otherwise than under normal circumstances.

2. Death occurred within 7 years of marriage

3. Soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband,

4. Such cruelty or harassment has been for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.

The Government, from time to time, has come up with legislations to protect women and to punish those committing atrocities on them, including Section 174 Cr.PC was also amended to secure Post Mortem in case of suicide or death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and section 113 B was inserted to make presumption as to dowry death.

In State Of Madhya Pradesh V. Jogendra,(11 January 2022) the court held demand for money for the construction of a house can be consider as dowry demand.

In Parvati Devi Vs. State Of Bihar (on December 17,2021) the Supreme Court upheld an important position of law pertaining to Dowry Death and the presumption of guilt in cases relating to dowry death as :

"Section 304B IPC read in conjunction with Section 113B of the Evidence Act leaves no manner of doubt that once the prosecution has been able to demonstrate that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soon before her death, the Court shall proceed on a presumption that the persons who have subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, have caused a dowry death within the meaning of Section 304B IPC. The said presumption is, however, rebuttable and can be dispelled on the accused being able to demonstrate through cogent evidence that all the ingredients of Section 304B IPC have not been satisfied." (Para 17).

In the above case, the deceased have been killed by her in-laws in relation to the demand of dowry. The deceased had been married to the accused and there had been multiple witnesses to prove that she was subject to the demand of dowry. On one day, the deceased went missing and seven days later her body was recovered from a water body with no ante mortem injuries. The case of the prosecution rests solely on circumstantial evidence. No eye witness has been produced who could testify as to how the body of the deceased was found on the banks of river Barakar.

Thereby From the circumstances, the court came up with two hypothesis (presumption).

1. The deceased was done away with within the four walls of her matrimonial home, her dead body was smuggled out and dumped into the river.

2. The deceased was alive when she was taken to the river-side under some pretext and pushed in, leading to her death by drowning.

If the first assumption is taken to be correct, then surely, some villager would have seen the accused persons carrying the dead body to the river where it was finally dumped. However, the prosecution has not produced any villager who was a witness to the body of the deceased being taken out of the matrimonial home and carried to the river.

Therefore, this version would have to be discarded in favour of the second one which is that the deceased was alive when she was accompanied to the river and then she was forcibly pushed in and could not emerge alive from the watery grave.

The latter assumption also gains strength from the post mortem report which records that there were no signs of any ante mortem injury on the body. If the deceased was killed in the house, then the body would certainly have revealed some signs of struggle.

The Court concluded that the impugned judgement and order of sentence imposed on him by the lower court is maintainable.

The court also placed reliance on the proximity test laid down in the landmark case of Maya Devi And Anr. V. State Of Haryana (2015) 17 SCC 405 where it was held that- "To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty or harassment "for, or in connection with the demand for dowry".

In other words, there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the women concerned, it would be of no consequence.

Hence, there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and the date of death.