Dowry-related violence

In Dr. G.M. Natarajan v. State, the Supreme Court considered a case in which a woman, harassed by her husband and in-laws for additional dowry, committed suicide by jumping into a well with her infant daughter within seven years of marriage. The trial court had acquitted the accused for lack of evidence.

This law defines “customary marriage” as the marriage between a man and a woman performed according to the tribal tradition of their locality and provides that a wife’s rights and duties within a customary marriage are the same as a wife’s rights and duties in a statutory marriage (a statutory marriage is a civil marriage license under the Domestic Relations Law).  §2.1 provides that all customary marriages are legal, and the duties and liabilities of the statutory wife shall be accorded to all customary wives.

In Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, a man convicted in part under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code appealed his conviction for abetting his wife’s suicide. Evidence showed a history of dowry-related abuse, including his demand for an additional 40,000 rupees from his wife and her family before she died by self-immolation.

Shortly after a couple wed, the husband and his relatives began treating the wife poorly and demanded dowry from her. The husband and his brother later strangled her with rope and his sisters held the wife’s arms. This led to her death. All of the accused were convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 498(a) of the Indian Penal Code.

In this case, the petitioner, convicted under the Dowry Prohibition Act, argued that the testimony of witnesses who were all related to the complainant was insufficient to prove his participation in a demand for dowry. The Court held that such testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction if credible, and that once evidence of a dowry demand is presented, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that they did not participate, such as by establishing an alibi.

In Rajbir @ Raju & Anr v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court of India considered an appeal against a sentence of life imprisonment for murdering his pregnant wife six months into their marriage because she requested money.

In this case, a woman's in-laws repeatedly demanded additional gifts from her. As a result of this harassment, the woman committed suicide. The Court defined dowry as any demand for money, property, or valuable security made directly or indirectly in connection with marriage.

In Shanti v. State of Haryana, the petitioners were charged and found guilty of dowry death. The Court upheld the conviction, holding that the evidence of cruelty necessary to create a presumption of dowry death may be less than or different from the level of evidence of cruelty necessary to uphold a charge of criminal cruelty.  The two crimes are unrelated, despite using similar wordings, and a person may be convicted of dowry death without having committed criminal cruelty.

A new bride was threatened by her in-laws if her family did not provide a greater dowry. When local villagers protested these threats, the husband’s family killed his new bride by burning her with kerosene. The main issue of the case was to determine how the elements of dowry-death should be proven at trial under amended Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted the defendant of dowry-death in taking a narrow statutory view.

A woman committed suicide by hanging herself after being mistreated and abused by her husband, being subject to complaints about her dowry and held responsible for the death of her father-in-law because of her "evil luck" by her in-laws, and being subjected to other mental torture.  In an action against the woman's husband and mother-in-law, the lower court had found insufficient evidence of systematic cruelty or physical or mental torture to sustain a conviction under 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, which provides that a relative of a woman that subjects that woman to cruelty may be i