DR RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

2021-22

IPC-II

Title- “DOWRY DEATH AND ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

Submitted by submitted to

Hardik Yadav Dr. Vipul Vinod

5th SEMESTER Assistant Professor (Law )

190101059 RMLNLU

1|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thanks everyone who helped me in making this project work especially in these tough
times ,a special thanks to our professor Dr. Vipul Vinod sir for being a constant support and I would also
like to thanks to my friends , fellow batchmates and seniors for their guidance

2|Page
INDEX

1. Introduction…………………………………………….3
2. Dowry death(304 B)………………………………….3
3. Soon before her death……………………………..5
4. Deeming fiction………………………………………..7
5. Leading Case……………………………………………..7
6. Sec 304 b compared with 498-A…………………9
7. Abetment of suicide through dowry demand 11
8. Other factors…………………………………………….12

3|Page
Introduction

“There has been an alarming increase in cases relating to harassment, torture, abetted suicides and
dowry deaths of young innocent brides. Lade of education and economic dependence of women have
encouraged the greedy perpetrators of the crime. It is more disturbing and sad that in most of such
reported cases it is the woman who plays a pivotal role in this crime against the younger woman, with
the husband either acting as mude spectator or even an active participant in the crime, in utter
disregand of his matrimonial obligations. In many cases, it has been noticed that the husband, even after
marriage, continues to be Mamma’s baby’ and the umbilical cord appears not to have been aut even at
that stage!1”

Dowry death (SEC- 304B)

(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 imprison ment for a term which shall not be
less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.]

Sec. 304-B has been inserted by the Amendment Act of 1986 to combat the ever-increasing menace of
dowry deaths in India. The section creates a new offence of ‘bride burning’. An act committed prior to its
enactment and enforcement cannot be tried under this section 2. However, the Allahabad High Court has
held that Sec. 304-B does not create a new offence, rather it reiterates in substance the offence under
Sec. 302 under which such offences were punished 3.

The Supreme Court took occasion in Shanti v State of Haryana 4 to explain the ingredients of Sec. 304-B:

(i)The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal
circumstances (e.g. suspicious circumstances).
1
SC in Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v State of A.P. (1993) CrLJ 1635 (SC).
2
[Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v State of Gujarat, 1991 CrLJ 3135 (SC)]
3
Bhoora Singh v State, 1992 CrLJ 2294 (All)
4
(AIR 1991 SC 1226)

4|Page
(ii) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her Marriage.

(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband.

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection With demand for dowry.

In this case, the facts revealed a saga of atrocities for a few items by way of dowry. The father and
brother came to see her, but they were driven out and she was not permitted to go with them. Certain
facts convinced the court that she died of an unnatural death (raising a presumption under Sec. 113-B,
Evidence Act). Her parents and brothers were not even informed soon after her death and she was
hurriedly cremated. Because of the cremation no post-mortem could be conducted and the actual cause
of death could not be established clearly. The court said: "It is no body's case that it was accidental
death. In the result, it was an unnatural death, either homicidal or suicidal. But even assuming that it is a
case of suicide, it would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case,
Sec. 304-B is attracted."

Death must be proved to be one "out of the course of nature" and the mere fact that the deceased was
young and death was not accidental is not sufficient to establish that death must have occurred
otherwise than under normal circumstances 5. Thus, where suicide is committed by married woman by
burning herself, and the evidence only showed some maltreatment on some earlier occasions for
inadequate dowry, it is insufficient for a conviction under Sec. 304-B. However, in Rajayyan v State of
Kerala6, the Supreme Court observed that "death of a woman by suicide occurring within seven years of
marriage cannot be described as occurring in normal circumstances.

Where injuries as found on the person of the deceased could not have caused her death, the offence
would not attract the mischief of the Sec, 304-B, though there might have been history of torture for
dowry [State of H.P. v Nikku Ram, 1995 CrLJ 4184].

Soon Before Her Death

An important ingredient for the section to come into play is that the cruelty or harassment was meted
out "soon before her death". In Keshab Chandra Panda v State of Orissa 7 , the court observed:

"A conjoint reading of Sec. 113-B of Evidence Act and Sec. 304 B, LP.C. shows that there must be
material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment.
Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the
purview of the "death occurring otherwise than in normal circunstances". The importance of a proximity
test lies both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as raising a presumption under Sec. 113-
B. No strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period soon before the
occurrence. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be
determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
5
[Akula Ravinder v State of A.P. AIR 1991 SC 1142]
6
(AIR 1998 SC 1211)
7
(1995) 1 CLJ 174

5|Page
The words "soon before her death" must be understood in their plain language and with reference to
their meaning in common parlance. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by
employing the words "soon before her death" is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all
probabilities, has been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a
reasonable, if not direct, nexus between her death and the dowry related cruelty or harassment inflicted
on her. There has to be a reasonable time gap and proximate link between the acts of cruelty along with
the demand of dowry and the death of the victim. For want of any specific period, the concept of
reasonable period would be applicable. Thus, the cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry should not
be so ancient, whereafter, the couple and the family members have lived happily as it would result in
abuse of the said protection. Such demand or harassment may not be strictly and squarely fall within
the scope of these provisions unless definite evidence was led to show to the contrary. These matters, of
course, will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of a given case 8 .

The cruelty and harassment by the husband or any relative could be directly relatable to or in
connection with, any demand for dowry. The expression "demand for dowry" will have to be construed
ejusdem generis to the word immediately preceding this expression. Thus for constituting an offence
under Sec. 304-B, the Court has to attach specific significance to the time of alleged cruelty and
harassment to which the victim was subjected to and the time of her death, as well as whether the
alleged demand for dowry was in connection with the marriage. Once these ingredients are satisfied, it
would be called the "dowry death" (Ashok Kumar v State of Haryana).

Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before". would normally imply that the interval
should not be much between. the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There
must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand
and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale
enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence"
(Hiralal v State (Government of N.C.T., Delhi) 9.

In this case, there was a history of beating the wife up for dowry. But the couple reconciled and
resumed joint life. The wife joined her husband after a long stay with her parents. The husband left her
back with her parents and after a fortnight took her away. Within two days thereafter her parents were
informed of her death. During the fortnight she had not made any complaint to her parents about
dowry or torture. It was held that Sec. 304-B was not attracted because there was no cruelty or
harassment soon before her death.

In another case, a harassment shown to have taken place 8 months before the suicide was held to be
not coming within the scope of the words "soon before". The evidence showed that cruelty was there.
The accused persons were not able to explain why the deceased wife committed suicide. They were
acquitted under Sec. 304-B but convicted under Sec. 306 (abetment of suicide), Sec. 498-A (cruelty by
husband or his relatives) and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 10.

In Nand Kishore v State of Maharasthra11 it was held that all the ingredients of this section must exist
conjunctively. There must be nexus between cruelty and harassment to raise the presumption of dowry
8
[Ashok Kumar v State of Haryana (2010) 12 SCC 350; AIR 2010 SC 2839].
9
2003 CrLJ 3711 (SC)
10
[Savalram v State, 2003 CrLJ 2831 (Bom)]
11
(1995 CrLJ 3706 Bom)

6|Page
death under Sec. 113-B, Evidence Act. Similarly, in Kans Raj v State of Punjab 12 ,it was held that there
should have been continuous cruelty connected with demand of dowry and the same should be in
existence till date when the deceased met her parents two days before her death. In this case, there was
no intervening circumstance on record showing settlement regarding demand of dowry. The existence
of harassment for dowry would be deemed to be there right up to the point of death. The accused were
convicted under Sec. 304-B.

Deeming Fiction

The concept of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to the criminal jurisprudence. In contradistinction to
this aspect, the legislature has applied the concept of ‘deeming fiction’ to the provisions of Sec. 304 B.
Once the prosecution proves its case with regard to the basic ingredients of Sec. 304-B, the Court will
presume by deemed fiction of law that the husband or the relatives complained of, has caused her
death. Such a presumption can be drawn by the Court keeping in view the evidence produced by the
prosecution in support of the substantive charge under Sec. 304-B. Of course, deemed fiction would
introduce a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives may, by leading their defence and
proving that the ingredients of Sec. 304-B were not satisfied, rebut the same [Ashok Kumar v State of
Haryana].

Case Law

LEADING CASE: RAM BADAN SHARMA V STATE OF BIHAR13

Facts and Issue – In this case, it was alleged that the husband and In-laws of the deceased had been
persistently demanding a Colour T.V., motorcycle and cash of Rs.20,000/-. Due to the failure of her
parents to give dowry articles, the deceased was harassed and was ultimately killed by administering
poison to her by the accused persons. On the basis of evidence on record, the court was called upon to
adjudicate following questions:

(i)Whether the prosecution was able to prove the demands of dowry?

(ii)Whether the deceased had died because of harassment and cruelty meted out at the hands of the
accused persons in connection with the demands of dowry?

(iii)Whether the death had occurred within 7 years of the marriage?

12
(AIR 2000 SC 2324)
13
[(2006) 10 SCC 115]

7|Page
Observations – The Apex Court observed: Ordinarily, legislations are based on public opinion, but at
times even legislations also create public opinion. Despite various legislations, the menace of dowry
deaths is unfortunately increasing at an alarming speed. Perhaps greater social awareness and more
severe legislative measures are urgently required to curb the menace of dowry related deaths.

This court in Hem Chand v State of Haryana (1994) 6 SCC 727, dealt with the basic ingredients of Sec.
304-B, IPC and Sec. 113-B, Evidence Act. The court observed: "A reading of Sec. 304-B, IPC would show
that when a question arises whether a person has committed the offence of dowry death of woman, it
should be shown that soon before her unnatural a death within 7 years of the marriage, she had been
subjected, by such person, to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. If that
is shown the court shall presume that such a person has caused the dowry death. It can therefore be
seen that irrespective of the fact whether such person is directly responsible for the death of the
deceased or not by virtue of the presumption he is deemed to have committed the dowry death if there
were such cruelty or harassment and that if unnatural death has occurred within 7 years from the date
of marriage.

Likewise there is a presumption under Sec. 113-B, Evidence Act, as to the dowry death. It lays down that
the court shall presume that the person who has subjected the deceased wife to cruelty before her
death caused the 'dowry death' if it is shown that before her death, such woman had been subjected, by
the accused, to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Practically this is the
presumption that has been incorporated in Sec. 304-B, IPC also. It can therefore be seen that
irrespective of the fact whether the accused has any direct connection with the death or not, he shall be
presumed to have committed the dowry death provided the other requirements mentioned above are
satisfied."

The court in the present case observed: In cases where it is proved that it was neither death nor an
accidental death, then the obvious conclusion has to be that it was an unnatural death (death occurring
otherwise then in normal circumstances) either homicidal or suicidal. But, even assuming that it is a case
of 'suicide', even then it would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a
case, Sec. 304-B is attracted.

The court further observed: The Law Commission of India, in its 91 Report on "Dowry deaths and law
reform" (1983), expressed deep concern that once a serious crime is committed, detection is a difficult
matter and still more difficult is successful prosecution of the offender. Crimes that lead to dowry deaths
are almost invariably committed within the safe precincts of a residential house. The criminal is a
member of the family; other members of the family are either guilty associates in crime, or silent but
conniving witnesses to it. In any case, the shackles of the family are so strong that truth may not come
out of the chains. There would be no other eye witnesses, except for members of the family. Perhaps to
meet a situation of this kind, the Legislature enacted Sec. 304-B, IPC and Sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act.

Decision-In the instant case, if the circumstances of the case are analysed on the touch stone of Sec.
304-B, IPC, all the basic ingredients of Sec. 304-B, IPC are present in the instant case. There has been
persistent demand of dowry and harassment, humiliation and physical violence and beating by the
husband and her in-laws. The deceased died under unnatural circumstances within 7 years of the
marriage. The accused persons clandestinely, secretly and hurriedly cremated the deceased without
informing the factum of death to the parents of the deceased. They are, thus, liable to be convicted
under Sec. 304-B, IPC.]

8|Page
Sec. 304-B Compared with Sec. 498-A

Sec. 498-A, I.P.C. lays down that husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty is
liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term up to 3 years, and fine. Explanation-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 (mental or physical) of the woman; or

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

The Supreme Court in Shanti v State of Haryana 14 observed: "Sections 304-B and 498-A cannot
be held to be mutually exclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that
cruelty is a common essential to both the sections and that has to be proved. The explanation to
Sec. 498-A gives the meaning of cruelty. In Sec. 304-B there is no such explanation. But having
regard to the common background of these offences, one has to take that the meaning of
"cruelty or harassment" is same as one find in explanation. to Sec. 498-A under which "cruelty"
by itself amounts to offence.

Under Sec. 304-B it is dowry death that is punishable and such death should have occurred
within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Sec. 498-A. Further, a person
charged and acquitted under Sec, 304-B can be convicted under Sec. 498-A without that charge
being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established, there i can be a conviction
under both the sections but no separate sentence would be necessary under Sec. 498-A in view
of the substantive sentence being awarded for the major offence under Sec. 304-B."

Sec. 306: Abetment of Suicide

"If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and
shall also be liable to fine."

Those who aid and abet the commission of suicide by the hand of the person himself who
commits the suicide, may be punished under this section. When another person, at the request
of or with the consent of the person who wants to commit suicide, has killed that person, he is
guilty of 'homicide by consent' which is one of the forms of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. The latter is covered by Exception 5 to Sec, 300 and is punishable under Sec. 304. The
cases of physician assisted suicide consent killing or euthanasia' and 'mercy killing viz, in respect
14
(AIR 1991 SC 1226)

9|Page
 of terminally ill patients (persistent vegetative state) are covered by Sec. 304 and not Sec. 306. It
may be noted that right to die' or 'right to suicide' is not recognized in India and, thus,
euthanasia is illegal in India.
B, by instigation, voluntarily causes C, a person of 18 years to commit suicide. B will be liable
under Sec. 306. Similarly, those who assist a Hindu widow in becoming sati will be guilty of
abetment of suicide15.
Cruelty may not by itself amount to abetment for suicide. A case of mental torture of this kind,
even if the girl does not commit suicide, would amount to an offence of 'cruelty' within the
meaning of Sec. 498-A, IPC. Further, where a married girl commits suicide within seven years of
her marriage, the court may presume that her husband and relatives of her husband had
abetted her to commit suicide (Sec. 113-A, Evidence Act). All these sections are welcome
measures to combat the ever-growing menace of dowry death.

It may be noted that a person who 'attempts to commit suicide is guilty of the offence under
Sec. 309 whereas the person who committed suicide cannot be reached at all. Sec. 306 renders
the person who abets the commission of suicide punishable for which the condition precedent is
that suicide should necessarily have been committed. Nobody would abet a mere attempt to
commit suicide16.

The offence under Sec. 306 could not be said to be a minor offence in relation to Sec. 302
[(Sangaraboina Sreenu v State of A.P., 1997 CrLJ 3955 (SC)]. Before Sec. 306 can be acted upon,
there must be clear proof of the fact that the death in question was a suicidal death (Wazir
Chand v State of Haryana AIR 1989 SC 378). Thus, an accidental death is not covered by Sec. 306.

Sec. 306 is an instance of "constructive homicide" i.e. creation of circumstances by the accused
in such a way that led a victim to end his own life. Instigation may be by words or conduct. The
constitutional validity of this section has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v State
of Punjab (AIR 1996 SC 946), in which case the court also upheld the constitutional validity of
Sec. 309 (Attempt to commit suicide). Sec. 306 is based on the public policy that no body should
involve himself in, or instigate or aid, the commission of a crime.

Abetment of Suicide through Dowry Demand

Dowry demand has invariably been linked to the abetment of suicide in a number of cases. In Brij Lal v
Prem Chand17, the husband persistently demanded money from his wife and quarrelled with her
everyday over the same thing. On the fateful day she reacted by saying that death would be better than
that state of life. He responded by saying that he would feel relieved if she died that very day. She set
herself afire immediately thereafter. The court held him to be guilty of instigating her to commit suicide.

15
(Tejsingh AIR 1958 Raj 169)
16
(Satvir Singh v State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 2826)
17
(AIR 1989 SC 1661)

10 | P a g e
In State of Punjab v Iqbal Singh18, the relationship between the husband and wife were strained over
dowry even to the extent that the wife had sought police protection apprehending danger to her life.
One day she set herself and her three children ablaze at the residence of her husband. Before putting an
end to her life, she had left ta note stating that her husband was demanding money by way of additional
dowry and was ill-treating her under the influence of alcohol. She had also stated that her mother-in-law
and sister-in-law also conspired and made false accusations against her and had also conspired to kill her
on one night by sprinkling kerosene/ petrol on her but their plan misfired. It was held that the husband
was responsible for creating circumstances which provoked or forced the wife to commit suicide and he
was therefore liable to be convicted under Sec. 306.

Where a newly wedded wife unable to bear the harassment from her husband to bring money from her
parents, set herself ablaze and the accused husband stood nearby not trying to save her, it was held that
the accused was guilty of offence under Sec. 306 . However, where the deceased wife never complained
to her parents of maltreatment, torture or cruelty by the husband and in-laws for bringing insufficient
dowry and there being no other evidence also, from the mere fact that she committed suicide within
few months of the marriage, no inference can be drawn against the husband and in-laws 19 .

Other Factors Related to Abetment of Suicide

Cruelty and maltreatment of the wife have also been linked to the abetment of suicide in a number of
cases. However, mere quarrelling with wife would not amount to abetment; thus, a quarrelsome
married life leading to wife dejected and mortified does not necessarily realt in a conviction under Sec.
306. Similarly, where the husband, a drunkard, often beat his wife after taking liquor, this does not
amount to abetment.

The words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of moment, such as "to go and die", cannot be taken to be
uttered with menu rea. It is in a fit of anger or emotion. In such cases, suicide by the deceased could not
be said to be the direct result of the quarrel. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do
some drastic or indivisible action or to stimulate or incite 20.

The facts and circumstances of a case are important in the determination of the issue of abetment of
suicide. Where newly married girl committed suicide due to being cruelly treated by the accused
husband and mother-in-law by way of taunting and beating, conviction of the accused under Sec. 306
and Sec. 498-A was held to be proper21. Where the accused (husband) suspected the character of his
wife and said: "You bloody whore, why don't you die". The court said that provocation to the wife for

18
1991 CrLJ 1897 (SC)
19
[State v Kirpal Singh, 1992 Crl.J 2472 (P&H))
20
[Sanju alias Sanjay Singh v State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371].
21
P. Sakharam v State, 1995 CrLJ 4021

11 | P a g e
committing suicide. A remark of this kind is also a verbal cruelty. The accused convicted under Sec. 306
and Sec. 498-A22.

22
[Mohan Chand Kholia v State, 2003 CrLJ 710 (Del)]

12 | P a g e