The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983 introduced the Code S. 498A to combat the menace of dowry death. According to the section, whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine. For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means:-

a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

A large number of aged men and women accused of murdering their daughters-in-law over dowry are reportedly languishing in jails across the country

In a case before the SC involving the death by burning of a newly married woman, the circumstances did not establish either murder or an abetted suicide and thus the in-laws escaped the jaws of ss. 300 and 306, but they were caught in the web of this newly enacted section for prevention of harassment for dowry. In another case  the SC observed that this section has given a new dimension to the concept of cruelty for the purposes of matrimonial remedies and that the type of conduct described here would be relevant for proving cruelty. It is no impediment to a conviction under the section that the accused has been acquitted of a larger offence of murder u/s 302. The language of the section clearly shows that the legislation has imbibed the necessary mens rea for the offence of death.

Parents are encashing their son for whatever they have spent on his upbringing and education

However, the section will not be applicable to every kind of harassment or every type of cruelty. To decide the question of cruelty, factors like matrimonial relationship between the husband and wife, their cultural and temperamental state of life, state of health, and their interaction in daily life are to be taken into account. The expression postulates such a treatment as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life.

As per the language of the section, the complainant has to show that the beating and harassment in question was with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfill the illegal demand of dowry. The complaint by the aggrieved wife regarding ill-treatment by her husband and in-laws has to be filed at the place where she was subjected to such cruelty, and not where she was residing with her mother.

The language of the section clearly shows that the legislation has imbibed the necessary mens rea for the offence of death.

The provisions of this section are not available to dowry harassment, which had ended in March 1983 by the husband disserting his wife, but where the marriage is still continuing and the events of cruelty taking place prior to the amendment can be taken into account. The section does not provide any obstruction to compound the complaint where the wife condones the matrimonial cruelty of which she was the victim and resumes consortium with her husband.

Greed being limitless, the demands of the in-laws become insatiable in many cases, followed by torture of the girl, leading to either suicide in some cases or murder in others.

A large number of aged men and women accused of murdering their daughters-in-law over dowry are repordly languishing in jails across the country. Even the high classes, the so called elite of the society, are not spared. For them it’s the more they get, the more they want. Recently, an IPS officer of the Madhya Pradesh cadre has been arrested and remanded into judicial custody in a dowry harassment and attempt to murder case. He is accused of demanding additional dowry of Rs 5 crore. Parents are encashing their son for whatever they have spent on his upbringing and education. The recent case of Anita Kaur, who committed suicide because of her in-law’s greed for dowry, and two broken marriages for the same reason brings to light the pathetic condition of the girls in our society.

The question before us is, “Should the charge of dowry death be liberally accepted?” Or should the charge, howsoever grave it is, stand the test of certain guidelines which include: death of a married woman should be by burns or bodily injury; second, it must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; third, soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by his relatives; last, such cruelty or harassment must be or in connection with dowry demands.

However the section will not be applicable to every kind of harassment or every type of cruelty.

-Lawz Bureau