Supreme Court clarified that any property or valuable security given at or after marriage amounts to dowry, while distinguishing Islamic ‘mehr’. The Court restored convictions and issued pan-India directions to strengthen enforcement, awareness, and disposal of such cases.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court clarified that the definition of dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is not restricted to demands made at the time of marriage; it encompasses property or valuable security given or agreed to be given “at, before, or any time after the marriage.”
A Bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set-aside an acquittal ruling by the Allahabad High Court.
It reinstated the convictions of a husband and his mother related to a dowry death case, but exempted the 94-year-old mother-in-law from imprisonment for humanitarian reasons.
The Allahabad High Court acquitted the accused based on the rationale that the absence of a dowry demand prior to marriage complicated the notion that subsequent demands were made.
The Supreme Court characterized this reasoning as fallacious. Referring to Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the Bench observed,
“It is clear that any property or valuable security given by either party to a marriage to the other on the day of marriage, before or at any time after marriage, shall be considered to be dowry.”
Thus, the Court concluded that the demands for a color television, motorcycle, and cash made by the accused constituted dowry, regardless of whether such demands were made at the start of the marriage.
In a significant segment titled “Dowry: A Cross-Cultural Evil,” the Supreme Court noted that while dowry historically stemmed from the Hindu caste system, it has since permeated other communities.
The Court emphasized a clear distinction between the Islamic practice of Mehr and the societal evil of dowry.
It explained,
“In Islam, dowry, stricto senso, is prohibited. What is prescribed is, in fact, the reverse. ‘Mehr’ is a compulsory gift that the groom is required to give to the bride at the time of marriage. The purpose of mehr is both symbolic and practical: it signifies respect for the woman and ensures her financial security in the marriage.”
The Bench expressed concern that in many Muslim marriages, Mehr is often nominally defined, while substantial dowry payments flow from the bride’s family to the groom, undermining the protective intent of Mehr.
The case involved the tragic death of Nasrin, a 20-year-old woman who succumbed to burn injuries a little over a year after marrying Ajmal Beg. The prosecution demonstrated that Ajmal and his family persistently demanded a color TV, a motorcycle, and Rs. 15,000. On June 5, 2001, the day after these demands were reiterated with threats against the deceased, she was found dead from burns.
The Trial Court convicted Ajmal Beg and Jamila Beg under Sections 304B (dowry death), 498A IPC (cruelty), and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
However, the Allahabad High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted both accused, leading the State of Uttar Pradesh to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s findings, stating,
“Suffice it to say that this reason does not appeal to reason.”
The Supreme Court reinstated the convictions of Ajmal Beg and his mother, Jamila Beg. Ajmal Beg was ordered to surrender within four weeks to begin serving his life sentence. Given her advanced age, the Court chose not to incarcerate Jamila Beg, emphasizing humanitarian considerations.
Rejecting the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court held that poverty of the accused cannot be a ground to assume that dowry demands were improbable. It further clarified that dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act includes demands made at any time before or after marriage and not only at the time of marriage.
Therefore, even if no dowry demand was proved at the time of the wedding, subsequent demands squarely fall within the legal definition of dowry.
ALSO READ: Dowry Death? Dying Declaration Sends Mother-In-Law To Jail For Life: District Court
The Supreme Court determined that the High Court incorrectly intervened in the findings made by the Trial Court and had not properly applied the relevant statutory presumptions concerning dowry-related offenses.
The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented met the necessary legal standards to invoke the pertinent provisions. As a result, the Court upheld the appeals brought by the State, reinstating the Trial Court’s findings with modifications related to sentencing.
The Court also ordered that the matter be rescheduled in four weeks to ensure compliance with its directives and to issue any further orders if needed.
Appellants represented through Advocates Abhishek Saket, Sudeep Kumar, AOR, Amruta Padhi, Chanchal Sharma, Manisha, Rupali
Respondents represented through Advocates Sadhna Sandhu, AOR, Shekhar Kumar, AOR, Bhanu Pratap Gupta, Shikha Sandhu, Rita Gupta, Nikhil Kumar Sharma, Shantanu Krishna, AOR (A.C.)
Case Title: State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg etc. , Criminal Appeal Nos. 132-133 of 2017
Click Here to Read More Reports On Dowry
Read Attachment