Dowry death- there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and dowry related harassment or cruelty soon before her death.

Punjab & Haryana High Court: The Court held that in view of the definition of “dowry” given under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the give or take of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom in India and being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed.
It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statutes that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. Hence, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not show that any demand for "dowry" was made by the appellants it will not be covered under Section 304-B of the Penal Code, 1860.



In the present case the deceased, i.e. wife of the appellant, died an unnatural death within a period of 7/8 months of her marriage by consuming poison. Taking note of the facts and the evidence adduced, the Court held that to invoke Section 304-B I.P.C., it was imperative for the prosecution to prove that “soon before her death”, she was subjected to such cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry, which is miserably missing in the present case. In order to invoke the provisions of dowry death, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty soon before her death. [Baru Singh v. State of Punjab, Crl. Appeal No. 1379-SB 0f 2003, decided on November 7, 2013]

Print Page