The Supreme Court refused to interfere with convictions in a Chhattisgarh dowry death case, strongly criticising dowry harassment and humiliation of brides, while Justice BV Nagarathna emphasised that courts must send a strong societal message against financial coercion and mistreatment in matrimonial homes.
The Supreme Court made sharp observations against dowry-related harassment and the treatment of women in matrimonial homes while hearing a criminal appeal arising from the death of a woman in Chhattisgarh who was found hanging at her matrimonial residence within a few years of marriage.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan refused to interfere with the conviction recorded against members of the husband’s family and strongly criticised the culture of financial coercion and humiliation faced by brides and their families. While hearing the matter, Justice Nagarathna highlighted the need for courts to send a strong societal message against dowry harassment.
She Questioned,
“Why do boys marry girls and then insult them and their families? Let a message go out that they cannot continue insulting the bride and her family.”
Factual Backgrounds:
The case arose out of a 2010 incident in Chhattisgarh where a married woman died by hanging in her matrimonial home within three years of her marriage. According to the prosecution, the woman had been subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment by her husband and his family over dowry demands. The allegations included repeated demands for cash and a car from the bride’s family.
The prosecution alleged that the deceased woman was repeatedly pressured and mentally harassed for additional dowry despite financial payments already being made by her family after marriage. Evidence presented before the trial court showed that the woman’s family had allegedly continued to fulfil financial demands in an effort to protect her marital life and ensure her safety.
The trial court concluded that the woman’s death occurred under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, thereby attracting the statutory presumption of dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Medical evidence confirmed that the woman died due to asphyxia caused by hanging. However, the courts observed that the surrounding circumstances established a direct nexus between the harassment suffered by the deceased and her death.
The courts relied upon witness testimonies from the woman’s relatives, who spoke about persistent dowry demands, monetary pressure and cruelty inflicted upon the deceased shortly before her death. Based on the evidence, several members of the husband’s family were convicted under Sections 304B (dowry death), 306 (abetment of suicide), and 498A (cruelty and harassment) of the IPC.
The Chhattisgarh High Court later upheld the conviction and findings of the trial court.
Appeal Before Supreme Court and Observations
The present appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the younger brother of the deceased woman’s husband. The petitioner sought relief specifically from his conviction under Section 498A IPC, arguing that the ingredients of cruelty and harassment were not made out against him.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his client had only been convicted under Section 498A and attempted to argue that the evidence did not justify his conviction.
The Bench, however, was not convinced by the submissions.
Justice Nagarathna remarked
“You should be happy that it is only 498A and only three years,”
During the hearing, the Supreme Court made a series of strong observations on the exploitation and humiliation often faced by women and their families in matrimonial disputes involving dowry.
Justice Nagarathna said,
“Attempt is to squeeze the bride and her family,”
Referring to allegations on record regarding the conduct of the husband’s family, the judge further observed:
“What exactly did the boy’s family say? You people are beggars; you cannot pay. The girl’s family was pleading to save their daughter and they were being called beggars.”
When the petitioner’s counsel attempted to respond, Justice Nagarathna interrupted and remarked:
“You should have kept quiet. Bride’s father said they can give Rs 60k and you call them beggars?”
ALSO READ: Vismaya Dowry Death: Supreme Court Suspends Husband Kiran Kumar’s 10-Year Sentence
The counsel also attempted to argue that there had been delay in registration of the FIR in the matter. However, the Court did not accept the submission as sufficient to discredit the prosecution case.
The Court observed,
“Let the message go. This is how brides are treated,”
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also expressed concern over the persistence of such practices even among educated families.
Justice Bhuyan remarked, “These are educated people,”
After considering the records and submissions, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court. The Bench ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 498A IPC.
Advocate Rishi Jaiswal appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Suchit Keshari vs State of Chhattisgarh.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE