Asking Daughter-In-Law To Arrange Money For Bail Of Husband, Father-In-Law Not Dowry: Gujarat High Court

Upholding the acquittal of a woman's in-laws accused of dowry death, the Gujarat High Court said that demanding money from her to meet legal expenses for applying for their bail in another case would not amount to dowry and can't be regarded as harassment related to "Illegal demand for dowry" leading to the woman's suicide.

The State's appeal challenged a 2013 judgment by the sessions court acquitting the accused–father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law (respondents Nos. 1 to 4)–of offences under Sections 304(B) (dowry death of a woman within 7 years of marriage due to harassment related to dowry), 306 (punishes abetment of suicide), 498(A) (cruelty by husband or his relatives towards a married woman), and 114 (abetment) IPC.

A Division Bench of Justice Cheekati M. Roy and Justice D.M. Vyas observed,

“…The admitted case of the prosecution is that they (accused) only demanded to arrange for money i.e. Rs.50,000/- to meet the legal expenses for the purpose of applying bail to the husband of PW-1 and her father-in-law, who were in judicial custody. Strictly speaking, in our considered view, it does not come within the meaning of “dowry” as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for the purpose of proving a case under Section 304(B) of IPC. Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any harassment of the deceased at the hands of the accused to meet an illegal demand for dowry and unable to bear said demand that she has committed suicide or met with an unnatural death in connection with said demand". 

As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased-wife, was married in January 2011. However, about six months later, in July, 2011, a criminal case related to land document fabrication was registered against her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law, leading to their arrest and judicial custody. It is further alleged that the father-in-law (accused no. 1 ) directed the other accused—mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law—to pressurize the deceased to arrange ₹50,000 from her father for legal expenses.

Thereafter, deceased's father managed to give ₹10,000, but the accused allegedly continued to harass her for the remaining ₹40,000 to meet the legal expenses to apply for bail. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased wife consumed poison and died by suicide on August 2011.

Further, it was stated the husband's family informed the deceased's father that she was unwell and taken to the hospital. He rushed to the hospital and found her unconscious on a hospital bench. Thereafter, she was shifted to another hospital, where she was declared dead. Suspicious about her death, the father of the deceased requested a postmortem.

It was alleged that the doctor initially attributed her death to heart and lung failure and preserved viscera for further examination. Following the inquest, the police registered a case against accused Nos. 1 to 4 (father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law), as the deceased's husband was already in judicial custody. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, denying the charges, the accused decided to face trial.

Findings

The Court noted that since the charge under Section 304(B) IPC pertained to dowry death, the prosecution was required to prove that the deceased died under unnatural circumstances. Although it was alleged that she consumed poison due to the accused's demand for ₹50,000 for bail expenses, there was no conclusive medical evidence to support this claim.

Further, the doctor who conducted the postmortem initially cited cardio-respiratory failure as the cause of death and mentioned that the viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. However, in court, he stated that the failure could be due to poison but admitted that, without viscera analysis, this could not be confirmed. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish with certainty that the deceased died due to poisoning.

The Court observed that under Section 304(B) IPC, harassment must occur within seven years of marriage related to a demand for dowry, which includes money or valuable property demanded before, during, or after marriage. However, the prosecution did not allege any such dowry demand by the accused in connection with the marriage.

Furthermore, the Court found it doubtful that the accused demanded ₹50,000 from the deceased to meet bail expenses though the Bank statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 showed they had ₹2 to 3 lakhs at that time, indicating they had sufficient funds for legal costs. The Court then noted that Section relating to abetment of suicide, is not applicable as to prove this offence, the prosecution must show that the accused 'instigated or aided' the deceased to commit suicide and remarked, 'we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out from the facts of the case.'

The Court then noted, as there was no dowry demand or related harassment, no offence of cruelty is made out under Section 498A and the prosecution 'failed to prove' the deceased wife consumed poison due to alleged harassment, the 'accused are at least entitled to benefit of doubt in the given facts and circumstances of the case.'

The court said: “The trial Court, after considering said evidence on record, and on proper appreciation of the same, has arrived at a right conclusion and held that prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges levelled against them and thereby rightly acquitted them of the said charges. Upon considering the said evidence on record and, re-appraisal of the same, we are also of the view that the prosecution failed to prove any of the charges levelled against the accused and establish the case of the prosecution against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal calls for no interference in this appeal and the same is not liable to be set aside”

The Court dismissed State's appeal confirming the acquittal by the Sessions Judge.

Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Natubhai Golanbhai Khuman & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order