Whereas quashing an acquittal of a husband and her mom convicted for dowry dying and cruelty, the Supreme Courtroom deemed it essential to concern basic instructions to deal with the difficulty of dowry deaths in society.
In passing the order, the Courtroom termed dowry as a social evil due to which a 20 yr outdated had to surrender on her life: “On this case, a younger woman, barely of twenty, when she was despatched away from the world of the dwelling by means of a most heinous and painful dying, met this unlucky finish just because her mother and father didn’t have the fabric means and sources to fulfill the desires or the greed of her household by matrimony. A colored tv, a bike and Rs. 15,000/- is all she was apparently value of.”
The Courtroom lamented that in terms of the giving and taking of dowry, this observe, sadly, has deep roots in society, and therefore, a social change is required for the efficient implementation of the regulation.
“To make sure that the change introduced in is ready to make an influence on the efforts to eradicate this evil, it’s to be ensured that the longer term era, kids of at present, are knowledgeable and made privy to this evil observe and the need to eschew it,” the Courtroom noticed.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh handed a slew of instructions, together with a course to all Excessive Courts to take a inventory of the pending dowry dying and cruelty instances for earliest disposal, due appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers in all States, and acceptable coaching to police and judicial officers to show them in regards to the social and psychological implications of such instances.
Earlier than issuing instructions, the Courtroom acknowledged how one has to oscillate between the ineffectiveness of the dowry dying and cruelty regulation and its misuse, which continues to create judicial stress and requires an pressing resolution.
It relied on Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, by which the then Justice R.S. Pathak noticed how the Dowry Prohibition Act(DPA) continues to be ineffective and the way the Courtroom, being attentive to the ineffective implementation, had issued instructions, however the annual statistics proceed to color a grim image.
“Whereas on the one hand, the regulation suffers from ineffectiveness and so, the malpractice of dowry stays rampant, alternatively, the provisions of this Act have additionally been used to ventilate ulterior motives together with Part 498-A, IPC. This oscillation between ineffectiveness and misuse creates a judicial stress which wants pressing decision.
Whereas this pressing decision can’t be burdened upon sufficient, on the similar time it’s essential to be acknowledged that notably in terms of the giving and taking of dowry, this observe sadly has deep roots in society, therefore, it not being a matter of swift change, as a substitute wants concentrated effort on a part of all of the concerned events, be it Legislature, regulation enforcement, Judiciary, civil society organizations and so on.”
The instructions:
1. It’s directed that States and even the Union Authorities contemplate adjustments as are essential to the academic curriculum throughout ranges, reinforcing the constitutional place that events to a wedding are equal to at least one one other and one is just not subservient to the opposite as is sought to be established by giving and taking of cash and or articles on the time of marriage.
2. The regulation gives for the appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers in States. It’s to be ensured that these officers are duly deputed, conscious of their obligations and given the mandatory wherewithal to hold out the duties entrusted to them.
The contact particulars (title, official telephone quantity and e-mail ID) of such an officer designated to this place are disseminated adequately by the native authorities guaranteeing consciousness of residents of the realm;
3. The police officers, as additionally the judicial officers coping with such instances, ought to periodically be given coaching, equipping them to completely respect the social and psychological implications which are sometimes on the forefront of those instances. This might additionally guarantee a sensitivity of the involved officers in direction of real instances versus these that are frivolous and abusive of the method of regulation;
4.The Excessive Courts are requested to take inventory of the scenario, confirm the variety of instances pending coping with Part 304-B, 498-A from the earliest to the newest for expeditious disposal: “it’s not misplaced on us that the moment case started in 2001 and will solely be concluded 24 years later by means of this judgment. It’s however apparent that there could be many such comparable instances.”
5 we additionally acknowledge that many individuals at present are/have been outdoors the training fold, and that it’s equally, if no more so, vital to succeed in them and make accessible and understandable, the related info concerning the act of giving or taking of dowry as additionally different acts typically related therewith, different instances impartial thereof (psychological and bodily cruelty) is an offence in regulation.
The District Administration together with the District Authorized Providers Authorities, by partaking and involving civil society teams and devoted social activists, is requested to conduct workshops/consciousness applications at common intervals. That is to make sure change on the grassroot degree.
Transient details
To briefly state the details, a younger woman, Nasrin, was married to Ajmal Beg. Over time, the husband Beg, and members of the family continued to demand a colored tv, a bike and Rs. 15,000 from her and her father. In 2001, the husband and his members of the family allegedly assaulted the deceased and earlier than any assist may arrive, the husband poured kerosene oil on her and set her on hearth.
When the maternal uncle arrived, they discovered her physique burned, useless. A primary info report was filed. The Trial Courtroom convicted the husband and her mom underneath Sections 304B(dowry dying), 489A(husband or relative of husband of a lady subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(penalty for giving or taking dowry) and 4(penalty for demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, they usually had been sentenced to life imprisonment with a positive. T
The 2 convicts most well-liked an enchantment, and the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom acquitted them of all expenses by an order dated October 7, 2003.
The Excessive Courtroom disregarded the testimony of the maternal uncle, stating that he was not an eyewitness to the incident, amongst different findings. Towards this order, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed an enchantment earlier than the Supreme Courtroom.
Findings of the Supreme Courtroom
Perusing the proof and the witnesses earlier than the Courtroom, the bench concluded that the prosecution’s witnesses’ testimonies of the daddy and mom of the deceased, the maternal uncle, had been constant that there was fixed harassment concerning dowry. The truth is, the fabric uncle had testified that he had seen the accused individuals operating away from the crime scene.
“The place of regulation being clear, as referred supra allow us to now contemplate the proof. The demand for dowry, and specifically, a bike, a color TV and Rs.15,000/- in money, have been established past affordable doubt, with such a model to not have been shaken in any respect. Equally so, in no method may or not it’s disputed that the mentioned demand had been reiterated only a day previous to the deceased passing away. This ties in with the truth that PW1(father) and PW2 (maternal uncle), each have testified to the impact of steady harassment of the deceased.”
Contemplating the unblemished proof on harassment and dowry dying, the Courtroom thought-about that the authorized requirement of “quickly earlier than her dying” of Part 304IPC, as defined in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana(2010), is met and the presumption of Part 113B of the Indian Proof Act comes into image.
In Ashok Kumar, the Supreme Courtroom mentioned that the expression “quickly earlier than her dying” is to emphasize the concept her dying ought to, in all chances, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In different phrases, there must be an inexpensive, if not direct, nexus between her dying and the dowry-related cruelty or harassment inflicted on her.
On the regard to the maternal uncle’s testimony, the bench discovered that the Excessive Courtroom was unsuitable in doing so as a result of the maternal uncle by no means mentioned that he noticed the act being dedicated. As a substitute, he had mentioned that he noticed the physique mendacity burnt.
Nevertheless, questions had been raised as to the testimony of the deceased’s mom, who testified that the deceased was glad in her matrimonial home. On this, the Courtroom mentioned that it could possibly’t be learn out of context and that the mom had described that after the deceased was given assurance by her father to return to her dwelling.
There was additionally concern raised that the Excessive Courtroom thought-about her assertion that the demand of dowry was not previous to marriage however after it. On this, the Courtroom clarified that the Dowry Prohibition Act makes no distinction between demand made prior or after marriage.
“The proof of all of the witnesses, together with the mom, is constant on the demand of dowry and each PW1 and PW2 have additionally testified to the continued harassment that was endured by the deceased. The Excessive Courtroom disbelieved the proof of PW2 however as we now have noticed above, his testimony can’t be disregarded in its entirety. This assertion alone can not assist the case of Ajmal and Jamila. When the harassment for dowry is proved and so is the truth that such harassment was made quickly earlier than her dying, then a mere assertion of one of many witnesses that she was apparently glad, wouldn’t save the Respondents from guilt”
Setting apart the Excessive Courtroom’s order, the bench remarked: “But one more reason given by the Excessive Courtroom for acquittal was that since Ajmal and his members of the family had been poor, they might not have made such a requirement as a result of even when they managed to acquire the identical, they’d no technique of sustaining the mentioned items. Suffice it to say that this cause doesn’t enchantment to cause. We may observe that, whereas reversing the findings of details returned by the Trial Courtroom, the Excessive Courtroom has not assigned any causes explicitly holding such findings to be misguided/perverse or unlawful.”
As for the quantum of sentence, whereas the husband is sentenced to life imprisonment, for the reason that mother-in-law’s age is 94 years, the Courtroom kept away from incarcerating her.
A duplicate of the judgment is to be circulated electronically to the Registrar of the Excessive Courtroom to position it earlier than the Chief Justices and solicit instructions on this regard. Additionally, the judgment to be shared with the Chief Secretaries of all States.
The matter will probably be heard after 4 weeks for compliance.
Case Particulars: STATE OF U.P. v. AJMAL BEG ETC.|CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 132-133 OF 2017
Quotation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1209
Leave a Reply