Delhi High Court: The applicant (‘accused’) had filed the present bail application registered for offence under Section 304-B1, 3062 and 498-A3 read with Section 344 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Girish Kathpalia, J., stated that it was unable to convince itself that merely because the deceased committed suicide in her parental home and not in her matrimonial home, it was not a case of dowry death. The place where a tormented lady gets compelled to kill herself had no bearing. The Court stated that for purposive interpretation of the provision under Section 304-B IPC, it was the existence and continuance of matrimony which had to be kept in mind and not the places to which the deceased shifts herself before taking her life. Thus, the Court stated that it did not find it a fit case to release the accused on bail and accordingly dismissed the bail application.
Background
On complaint dated 27-04-2023 by the complainant, the FIR for offence under Section 304-B/498-A/34 IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused, his parents and sister. Currently, the matter was pending trial, and six out of forty prosecution witnesses were examined.
On 22-2-2023, the accused got married with the deceased, and on the very next day of marriage, the accused and his family members started harassing the deceased over dowry, stating that the deposit of Rs. 7,00,000 brought by her from her parental home would fetch only a small car. Further, on 15-3-2023, the deceased shifted to her parental home, after which she continued to remain in communication with the accused over telephone, the last telephone call being of 584 seconds on 23-4-2023, which followed her suicide on 27-4-2023.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that it was unable to convince itself that merely because the deceased committed suicide in her parental home and not in her matrimonial home, it was not a case of dowry death. Place where a tormented lady gets compelled to kill herself had no bearing. The Court stated that for purposive interpretation of the provision under Section 304-B IPC, it was the existence and continuance of matrimony which had to be kept in mind and not the places to which the deceased shifts herself before taking her life.
The Court stated that Section 304-B was inserted in IPC by way of an amendment in the 1986 with the object of dealing with the cases of dowry death, which apart from killing of a hapless lady surrounded by adverse alien ecosystem, entail grave social ramifications. The Court stated that the expression “soon before her death”, as used in Section 304-B of IPC had to be construed keeping in mind the scope and purpose behind the enactment. Doing so, this expression had to be read as an expression of continuity of time and not an expression of mere length of time. The Court stated that one had to keep in mind that the legislature in its wisdom used the phrase in question as “soon before” and not “immediately before”.
The Court after observing the facts of the present case, observed that there were specific allegations of dowry harassment. The Court stated that it was not able to accept the contention of the accused’s counsel that the offence under Section 304-B of IPC would not be made out, because there was no allegation of harassment soon before the death of deceased. Thus, the Court stated that it did not find it a fit case to release the accused on bail and accordingly dismissed the bail application.
[Vinay v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln., 4627 of 2024, decided on 7-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mohit Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Manjeet Arya, APP for State with Inspector Davender Singh from PS Jaffar Pur Kalan; Amrita Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 80 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
