‘Dowry harassment for giving birth to girl continued till woman’s death’: Delhi court convicts husband, family

Judge Harvinder Singh heard a dowry case and convicted a man and his family.

“No one contemplates even in his wildest imagination that such demands …would lead to death of their daughter one day… this court cannot lose sight of fact that things happened over a time span of around six years and it is not a case where a married woman died within few days/months after marriage to expect family-members of deceased married woman to exactly narrate date of demand, date of its fulfillment and who received it,” the bench added.

Marriage to dowry death

• A woman and a man got married on June 10, 2011.
• The woman’s father had alleged that they had given substantial dowry and gifts at the time of the couple’s marriage.
• The woman’s family alleged that the accused were pressurising their daughter to fetch more money and other items as her dowry, including a Rs 50,000 Apache motorcycle, Rs 40,000 loan for business and Rs one lakh for the sister of their son-in-law.
• They alleged that their daughter was harassed since the beginning of the marriage, beaten up and taunted for giving birth to a girl child.
• On August 18, 2016, the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, the daughter allegedly told her family that her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law were harassing and beating her for dowry.
• On August 19, 2016, she returned to her matrimonial home, and on August 21, 2016, she died by hanging there, within seven years of marriage.
• The family alleged that the cruelty and dowry demands had a direct link with their daughter’s suicide, warranting dowry death under Section 204B IPC.

‘Loan request does not come under dowry’

The husband’s family contended that the woman was depressed because her sister’s marriage did not materialise with a wealthy man who had later married he sister-in-law.

They also mentioned that before the woman’s suicide, no dowry harassment complaint was ever made, and there were no proofs of any payments, as the woman’s father was not financially sound and he could have never paid the alleged amount of dowry claimed by the woman’s family.

It was alleged that they had just requested a loan and that does not fall under the ambit of dowry, and there were no injury marks found on the woman’s body during the postmortem.

The allegations made by the family were only based on the statements of interested family witnesses and contained inconsistencies and contradictions, they added in their contentions.

‘Father was in shock at losing daughter’

The Karkardooma Court, Shahdara District, Shahdara, observed that the woman’s death was unnatural and had occurred within seven years of marriage, satisfying the requirement of Section 304B IPC.

The court noted the testimonies of the woman’s parents, siblings, and cousin regarding the harassment, held the minor omission in the father’s initial statement can be kept aside, as he was in shock at losing her daughter.

Observing that families often borrow money to meet the dowry demands, the court rejected the accused contention that the woman’s father could not have arranged the high amount of dowry that they claim to have given, with that in the absence of medical evidence, the depression theory made by the accused was also rejected. 

The court held that the absence of injury marks during the postpartum period does not discredit the harassment, cruelty and physical abuse contentions against the man and his family; it noted that harassment continued until shortly before her death, including the demand of Rs 50,000 and complaints of beating made days before.