The Calcutta High Court held that a husband’s pressure on his wife to bring her share of ancestral property may amount to a dowry demand under Section 304B IPC. The Court upheld his conviction, reduced the sentence to ten years, and acquitted the parents-in-law.
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a husband’s persistent pressure on his wife to obtain and bring her share of ancestral property from her parental home may fall within the broader meaning of a “dowry demand” under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While affirming the husband’s conviction for dowry death, the Court modified the sentence reducing it from life imprisonment to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and acquitted the parents-in-law due to the prosecution’s failure to produce substantive evidence against them.
Background Details
The Calcutta High Court partly allowed two appeals in a dowry death matter. It held that although the prosecution proved that the deceased through her husband was subjected to sustained pressure, the evidence on record did not substantively connect the parents-in-law with any cruelty or with the alleged dowry demand.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray upheld the husband’s conviction, sentencing Sajal Parui under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. At the same time, it acquitted his father, Harendra Chandra Parui, and mother, Rina Parui. The Bench also altered the husband’s punishment from life imprisonment to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The case relates to the death of Chayanika, who married Sajal Parui in April 2010. The prosecution claimed that at the time of marriage, the bride’s family had given cash, gold ornaments, and household articles. After a few years of marriage and the birth of a daughter, the prosecution alleged that the husband and his family began demanding additional money and subjected the deceased to both mental and physical cruelty.
The prosecution further asserted that the deceased was repeatedly compelled to persuade her brother to sell the family’s ancestral property and hand over her share of the sale proceeds. It was also alleged that some parts of the ancestral property had already been sold previously and that the deceased had received her portion on those occasions.
On 23.06.2014, Chayanika and her minor daughter were found hanging inside the matrimonial home, and information was allegedly communicated to the deceased’s brother. Two days later, an FIR was registered under Sections 498A, 302, 304B, and 34 IPC against the husband and his parents. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 498A and 304B IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Trial Court acquitted all accused of the murder charge under Section 302 IPC after concluding that Chayanika died by suicide and the minor child had been killed by her mother before Chayanika took her own life. However, the Trial Court convicted all three accused under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.
The husband was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The parents-in-law were sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved, separate appeals were filed before the High Court.
Observations of High Court
One of the main submissions made before the High Court was that a demand that a wife seek her legal share in ancestral property can never amount to a dowry demand. The Bench rejected this view based on the evidence.
It noted that the brother of the deceased consistently testified that parts of the ancestral property were sold at the deceased’s request and that she received half of the sale consideration. The High Court also observed that this was not specifically disputed during cross-examination.
While recognizing the wife’s legal right to claim her share in ancestral property, the Court clarified that the issue was not whether the right existed, but the manner in which the claim was being pursued in the matrimonial setting.
The Bench observed,
“It is true that a lady can demand her share in her ancestral property but when such demand appears to be a result of direction and pressure from her husband, we cannot say that such demand would not come under the broader term of ‘dowry demand’,”
The Court found evidence showing continuous pressure exerted by the husband to obtain the deceased’s share of ancestral property from her parental family. It agreed with the Trial Court’s assessment that within a short span, the deceased’s brother was repeatedly asked to sell the remaining ancestral land and hand over the deceased’s portion of the sale proceeds.
The Bench also dismissed the argument that the prosecution case was weakened by the absence of independent witnesses. It reasoned that such demands are typically made within the privacy of the matrimonial home.
The Court remarked,
“It is not expected that Sajal will make such a demand in the presence of any independent witness,”
The High Court also relied on a suicide note recovered during investigation. The defence argued that the note exonerated the husband and the in-laws. However, the Bench held that the note instead indicated an unhappy marital relationship and revealed the pressure under which the deceased was living.
The Court noted that the suicide note referred to a passive threat to the effect that if money was not arranged, the husband might contract another marriage.
The Bench observed,
“The suicide note has clearly indicated that there was a passive threat from the side of the appellants that if the arrangement of money was not done… Sajal Parui may marry another girl for the second time,”
It further found that the record demonstrated sustained pressure on the deceased to bring money from her parental home.
Although the husband’s conviction was sustained, the High Court concluded that there was no substantive evidence against the parents-in-law. It noted that although the FIR included allegations against Harendra Chandra Parui and Rina Parui, those allegations were not supported during trial.
The Bench highlighted that the deceased’s brother described as the de facto complainant “did not utter a single word against them” while deposing before the Trial Court. It also found that the remaining prosecution witnesses did not establish that the parents-in-law had actively participated in either demanding money or subjecting the deceased to cruelty.
According to the Bench, the Trial Court’s conclusions against the parents-in-law could not stand without cogent evidence. It said,
“We do not find any substantive evidence on record… there is no clinching evidence against those appellants showing that they had actively participated in the commission of offence and took part in demanding the victim’s share in her ancestral property.”
The parents-in-law were therefore given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.
The husband also contended that the prosecution failed to satisfy the ingredients needed to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The High Court rejected this contention. It reiterated that once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts constituting dowry death under Section 304B IPC, the presumption under Section 113B operates. Quoting Gurdip Singh, the Court stated: “Once all the ingredients are present, the presumption of innocence fades away.” The Bench held that continuous cruelty linked to the demand for money from the deceased’s parental property was proved, making it proper for the Trial Court to draw the statutory presumption against the husband.
The High Court also distinguished Vipin Jaiswal v. State of Andhra Pradesh, relied on by the defence. It held that unlike that case, the present record contained adequate evidence of persistent pressure upon the deceased to bring money from her parental family.
While maintaining conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, the High Court accepted the husband’s challenge to the sentence. The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hari Om v. State of Haryana, observing that although Section 304B IPC provides a minimum sentence of seven years, life imprisonment should not be imposed automatically in every case.
“…life imprisonment… should be awarded in ‘rare cases’ but not in every case.” Applying that principle, the Court concluded that the present case was not one of those exceptional cases that warranted the maximum punishment.
The Court also noted that although the husband was guilty of subjecting the deceased to cruelty for dowry, cases involving suicide following dowry harassment are, sadly, not rare enough to justify a routine award of life imprisonment. Consequently, it reduced the punishment from life imprisonment to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, leaving the fine imposed by the Trial Court unchanged.
Accordingly, the appeals were partly allowed. Harendra Chandra Parui and Rina Parui were acquitted of all charges after the Court found no substantive evidence connecting them to the alleged dowry demand or cruelty. Their bail bonds were directed to be discharged.
Case Title: Sajal Parui Vs. The State of West Bengal CRA (DB) 183 OF 2024
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE