Suicide Dowry Demand Not Rare Court Husband Jail Term

The Calcutta High Court has recently said that suicides stemming from torture for the demand of dowry are “not very rare or uncommon” and reduced the life imprisonment to 10 years for a man held guilty for the death of his wife and minor daughter.

While hearing the plea of the man and his parents, who too faced seven years’ imprisonment in the dowry death case, justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray held that the woman was constantly subjected to cruelty and dowry demands, which led to her killing herself and the child.

“However, needless to say, the commission of suicide failing to bear with the torture for demand of dowry is not very rare or uncommon one, and accordingly, in view of the judgment passed in Hari Om (supra), we are inclined to reduce the sentence of the appellant number 1 from life imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment but there would be no change in sentence of fine,” the court said.

The bench noted that the woman’s suicide note “clearly indicated” a passive threat from her husband and in-laws and the threat that if she didn’t give in to the dowry demands, the man would marry someone else.

“If that be so, we can say that the demand for share was so much so that the victim chose to end her life with her minor child. We have found no reason to interfere with the reasoning and conclusion of the learned trial judge. Needless to say, such a demand on the victim was the outcome of the pressure created upon her by her husband. It is not expected that Sajal will make such a demand in the presence of any independent witness,” held the court.

The court, however, didn’t find enough material on record to uphold the punishment given to the in laws and acquitted them, underling the absence of any “clinching evidence” against them to prove their active participation in the crime.

Advocates Avishek Sinha and Madhusree Banerjee, representing the husband and the parents, pointed to a two-day delay in lodging of the FIR. But the court ruled it out, saying it was unfortunate event, which left her family members “stunned and speechless”.

Public prosecutor Debasish Roy and advocates Sreyashee Biswas along side Nandini Chatterjee insisted that the conviction and sentencing against the husband and in-laws was correctly done.

Roy argued that demand of dowry could take place through various designs and modes and, therefore, it cannot be said that as the deceased demanded her share of property the same cannot be treated as dowry demand.

“They might have been placed in a state of indecisiveness. In our view, such delay cannot give a fatal blow to the prosecution case. Moreover, taking legal advice on such a scenario is the most reasoned step on the part of the de facto complainant,” it noted.

The court found no hesitation to hold that the trial court was correct in underlining the “continuous pressure” on the woman from her husband to claim her share of ancestral property.

Crucially, the court said that it is true that a “lady can demand her share in her ancestral property but when such demand appears to be a result of direction and pressure from her husband”, it cannot be held that the demand would not come under the broader term of “dowry demand”.

“It is true that there is no independent witness, but the factual aspect of demand as narrated by the relatives coupled with the suicide note of the victim are sufficient to show that there was a serious unhappiness in the marital relationship of the victim with her husband,” the court said.

Written by Avinash Verma (Avinash is an intern with The Indian Express)