Interpret law to prevent danger; Beware: the Supreme Court from the courts in dowry murder cases

Saying that “the risk of dowry death is increasing day by day”, the Supreme Court on Friday in keeping with the legislative intent to curb the “social evil of burning bride and dowry demands” from the courts. Called upon to explain the law on the subject. To be alert to the attempts of the accused husband to trap the family members, although they may have no active role in committing the crime and may live in distant places. Tracing the history of the Dowry Prohibition Act and amending it, especially the 1096 amendment by which Section 304B was specifically introduced in the IPC, as a stringent provision to prevent the menace of dowry killing in the country, A bench of Justice NV Ramana and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed, “Considering the importance of such a law, A strict interpretation would defeat the purpose for which it was enacted ”. Section 304B (1) defines ‘dowry death’ as ​​whether a woman’s death was caused by burns or bodily injuries or is separated from normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, and is shown

That just before her death, cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with the demand for dowry. The court was hearing an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court order upholding the conviction and sentence of a person in the case of his wife’s death in the thirteenth month of marriage. The accused said in defense that the prosecution failed to prove that there was any demand for dowry and even if it was believed that there was such a demand, the state did not prove that it was “soon” or near the death of the woman . Writing for the bench, CJI Raman said that although the clause in general should be interpreted strictly as it is a criminal statute, however, “where strict interpretation leads to absurdity or goes against the spirit of the law” , Courts in appropriate cases, To resolve such ambiguities, rely on the actual import of words taken in their common sense ”. The bench said that it cannot be denied that such social evil still persists today.

A study titled “Global Study on Homicide: Gender-Related Killing of Women and Girls” published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime highlights that all female murders recorded annually in female dowry deaths in 2018. Accounts for 40–50 percent. India. The disappointing truth is that between 1999 and 2016, these figures remained stable. In fact, the latest data submitted by the National Crime Records Bureau indicates that in 2019 alone, only 7115 cases were registered under Section 304-B, IPC. Given the state of affairs, “therefore … it is safe to conclude that when the legislature used the words ‘immediately before’, they did not mean ‘immediately before’.” Rather, he left his decision in the hands of the courts. The fact of cruelty or harassment varies from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite diverse.

Therefore no straitjacket formula can be determined by this Court to define what the phrase ‘soon’ is. “Therefore, courts should use their discretion to determine whether the period between cruelty or persecution and the victim’s death will fall within the word ‘soon before'”. What is important for the above determination is the establishment of a ‘close and lively link’ between the cruelty and the resulting death of the victim ”, the bench said. It is also stated that this section does not take a pigeon’s approach in classifying “death as suicide or accidental or accidental, as it had been done earlier.” The reason for this… is due to the fact that deaths occurring “except under normal circumstances” can be, in cases, suicides or accidental or accidental. However, Section 304-B, IPC attempts to address those situations as well