2.

1 Not a Dowry Death

According to Section 304 B of I.P.C

(1) 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. Explanation.—
For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

The Calcutta High Court in the case of Netai Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, has ruled that
voluntary gifts given by relatives and friends before or after the wedding to the bride or the
bridegroom and which are not given as a consideration for marriage but out of love and
affection, will not fall within the definition of 'dowry' under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Customary gifts and presents given to the bride or groom during marriage cannot be considered
as dowry, Orissa High Court ruled. In a significant judgment, a single judge bench of Justice SK
Sahoo observed that the presents given at the time of marriage either to the bride or groom do not
come within the definition of dowry as per the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In the case of Ran Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr, the Supreme Court has ruled
that demand for money and presents from parents of a married girl at the time of birth of her
child or for other ceremonies, as is prevalent in society, may be depreciable but cannot be
categorized as dowry to make it a punishable offence. This means, if a daughter-in-law is being
harassed for customary gifts by parents-in-law, then they could be booked under ordinary penal
provisions but not under the tough anti-dowry laws providing stringent punishments. Acquitting
the parents-in-law of a woman who had accused them of harassing her for dowry, a Bench
comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and S Sathasivam took help of a 2001 judgment of SC to say
that not all demands from the parents-in-law could be categorized as dowry under the Dowry
Prohibition Act.

It said though the Act covers payment of money or articles during, before or after marriage by
the girls parent to her in-laws, the cash and presents given had to have a link with the marriage to
become objectionable in law. Other payments which are customary payments, for example given
at the time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies, are not
covered by the expression dowry, said Justice Pasayat, writing the judgment for the Bench.