NO.

12 CASE ANALYSIS ON DOWRY DEATH AND

ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

ASSIGNMENT SUBMITTED TO
PROF.PRABIR KUMAR PATTNAIK
ON INDIAN PENAL CODE
BY
ANOUSHKA MISHRA
BA.LLB(H) 3RD YEAR (6TH SEM)

BATCH :2018-2023

REG NO:1841802021

SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW

(Deemed to be university)
 INDEX
1. FACTS OF THE CASE

2. ISSUES OF THE CASE

3. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PROSECUTION

4. CONCLUSION
 FACTS OF THE CASE
Raman and his Girl friend tortured Geeta (the Wife of Raman) to bring more
dowry. Later on Geeta’s dead body was found in her bed room under abnormal
circumstances. Police Charged Raman and his Girl friend U/S 304-B & 306 of
IPC.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. WHETHER RAMAN AND HIS GIRLFRIEND IS LIABLE UNDER SEC 304B

AND SEC 498A OF IPC?

2. WHETHER RAMAN AND HIS GIRLFRIEND ARE LIABLE UNDER SEC 306

OF IPC?

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PROSECUTION

ISSUE 1:

SEC 304B :Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is
shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband
or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused
her death.

Here the husband ,Raman was torturing Geeta , his wife to bring more dowry along with his
girlfriend and Geeta’s dead body was found in abnormal circumstances.

In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana1 ,it was held by the Court that
Demand for dowry itself is an offence under Section 304B and to be an offence under this it
does not requires that an agreement for it should be necessarily present.

1
1996 SCC (4) 17 JT 1996 (5) 155 1996
The Supreme Court in Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar v. State of Karnataka2, it was held
that dowry demand is included in the “unlawful demand” as contemplated under Explanation
(b) of Section 498-A.

So, also is liable for cruelty which is one of the essentials of dowry death and he will be liable
as he was torturing his wife before death and it was connection with the dowry as per the
facts stated and also was having affair with another women ie. the Girl Friend being married
also, which subjected the wife with both physical as well as mental cruelty.

It is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other
person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property, etc. that it amounts to
“cruelty” punishable under Section 498-A IPC3

In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab4 proof of the wilful conduct actuating the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or
physical, is the sine qua non for entering a finding of cruelty against the accused person.

From the above contentions the husband will be held liable under Section 304B and Sec
498A of IPC.

The girl friend will not be liable under Sec 304B and Sec 498A as she is not coming with the
term relative of the husband which is an essential ingredient to be liable for dowry death and
cruelty.

The Court cited U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police5whereby it was held that the
girlfriend or concubine of the husband could not be held to be the relative of the husband as
not connected by blood or marriage.

Even as per the dictionary meaning "relative" means a person connected by blood or marriage
or 'a species related to another by common origin'. Simply because A-6 is having illicit
intimacy with A-l, it cannot be said that she is a relative of A-16.

2
(2013) 4 SCC 551
3
State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582.
4
(2017) 1 SCC 433
5
(2009) 6 SCC 757
6
Rajeti Laxmi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh I (2007) DMC 797
In the case of Anumala Aruna Deepika vs State Of Andhra Pradesh7, it was held that girl
friend not liable for prosecution under Sec 498A.

So, the girlfriend is not liable under Sec 304B and 498A of IPC.

ISSUE 2:

Section 306 OF IPC states that: If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either imprisonment for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Abetment of suicide is an offence tried in a Sessions court and is cognizable, non-bailable

and non-compoundable in nature.

Cognizable offence: A police officer can make an arrest without a warrant from a court.

Non-bailable offence: Bail is granted to the accused at the discretion of the court, and not as a
matter of right.

Non-compoundable offence: The case cannot be withdrawn by the complainant even when
the complainant and the accused have reached a compromise. The court will not allow
withdrawal of a case involving a non-compoundable offence.

In the landmark judgement of M. Mohan v State8, the Apex Court held that there should be a
close link between the act of the accused and the act of committing suicide.

Here Raman and his girlfriend’s act of torturing Geeta for dowry and Geeta’s death which
was in abnormal circumstances are connected . Geeta out of the act might have killed herself.

For conviction it is necessary that a chain of circumstances such as, outrageous acts of
humiliation, be so created under which the deceased would commit suicide9. Here wife was
tortured by Raman and his Girlfriend in regular basis for dowry which is itself humiliating

7
12/07/2021 ORDER iA No. 2 OF 2021 IN CriP.No.3838 of 2021
8
(2011) 3 SCC 626
9
Dammu Sreenu v. State of A.P., 2003 CriLJ 2185 (AP)
Presumption of abetment

As to offence of abetment to commit suicide, section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 lays
down that:

 if a married lady commits suicide within seven years of her marriage;

 if her husband or his relative had subjected her to cruelty within the meaning of the
term as defined in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, then the Court may
raise the presumption of the fact that the husband or such relative of her husband
abetted the suicide.

Here Raman had subjected Geeta to cruelty so there is presumption of abetment also.

In the case of Appasaheb versus the State of Maharashtra10 (the important issue of offences
related to dowry) Appasaheb was convicted for the death of his wife, Bhimabai, after she
consumed poison. A case was registered against him and his mother under IPC Sections
498A (cruelty against the woman for dowry), and 306 (abetment of suicide)

In the case of M.Janakaraj vs State11 , Appellant continued his relation with another woman.
The appellant's illicit relation with another woman would have definitely created the
psychological imbalance to the deceased which led her to take the extreme step of
committing suicide. It cannot be said that the appellant's act of having illicit relationship with
another woman would not have affected to negate the ingredients of Sections 306 I.P.C.

To drive the deceased to suicide, instigation and involvement of the accused must be directly
connected12

In the case of, Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, it was13s held that instigation to
commit suicide has to proved by gathering evidence from the circumstances of a particular
case and there should be direct nexus of the instigation and the act. A successful prosecution
needs to process, there must be intention and involvement of the accused to instigate the
commission of suicide.

Here Raman and his Girlfriend both were directly involved in torturing Geeta for dowry and
there was also direct nexus between the torture for dowry and the death.
10
Appeal (crl.) 1613 of 2005
11
Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2014
12
Sanjay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Appeal (crl.) 572 of 2002
13
(2012) 9 SCC 734.
So, from the above contentions ,it is proved that Raman and his Girl Friend will be liable
under Sec 306 of IPC.

CONCLUSION

As per my analysis of the case:

1. Raman will be liable under Sec 304B and 498A of IPC.

Under Sec 304B Raman will be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Under Sec 498A Raman will be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
2. Raman and his Girlfriend will be liable under Sec 306 of IPC and will be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

REFERENCES
 https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/06/09/explained-cruelty-and-
dowry-death-can-conviction-under-section-304-b-ipc-sustain-without-
any-charges-under-section-498a-ipc/
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/persons-name-suicide-note-enough-prove-
culpability/
 https://www.livelaw.in/tags/Section-306-IPC
 https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/12/03/law-for-laymen-section-
498-a-ipc-and-allied-sections-cruelty-to-women/
 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4864-abetment-to-suicide-
an-offence-under-section-306-of-indian-penal-code-ipc-1860.html
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/dowry-death/