The Supreme Court of India has held that a demand for gold ornaments made at the time of the ‘Chhoochhak’ ceremony—a customary ritual performed upon the birth of a child—cannot be categorized as a “dowry demand” within the meaning of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the conviction of a husband under Section 304B (Dowry Death) while sustaining his conviction under Section 498A (Cruelty) of the IPC. The Court observed that for an offence to fall under Section 304B, the demand for property or security must be in connection with the marriage, distinguishing it from customary gifts demanded during childbirth ceremonies.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to November 1986, when the appellant, Baboo Khan, married Khatoon (the deceased). In May 1988, a male child was born to the couple, followed by the performance of the ‘Chhoochhak’ ceremony. On November 24, 1988, both the deceased and her infant child were found dead in a well.
Following the incident, the father of the deceased lodged an FIR on November 25, 1988, alleging harassment and torture over demands for a gold ring and chain during the ‘Chhoochhak’ ceremony. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant for offences under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC.
On August 1, 1990, the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, convicted Baboo Khan, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B and one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A. The appellant challenged this verdict in the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, which dismissed his appeal on April 27, 2015, upholding both the conviction and the sentences. Aggrieved by this affirmation, the appellant moved the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the conviction and sentence were erroneous due to the absence of concrete evidence beyond reasonable doubt. She argued that the appellant was entitled to an honourable acquittal.
Alternatively, the counsel submitted that Section 304B IPC had been “erroneously invoked.” She relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2001) 8 SCC 633, arguing that the alleged demand for gold at the ‘Chhoochhak’ ceremony did not constitute a demand for dowry. She pointed out that under Section 498A, the maximum punishment is three years, and the appellant had already undergone incarceration exceeding the one-year sentence imposed by the courts below for that specific offence.
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Standing Counsel for the State of Rajasthan, defended the impugned judgments. She submitted that the demand for a gold ring and chain at the time of the ‘Chhoochhak’ ceremony had been proved and could be “directly related to a demand for dowry.” She argued that the unnatural death of the deceased and her infant in a well indicated torture, justifying the conviction under both sections.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined whether the demand for gold ornaments during the ‘Chhoochhak’ ceremony qualified as “dowry” under Section 304B IPC.
The Bench referred to the precedent set in Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab, specifically paragraph 21, to distinguish between dowry demands and other demands. The Court observed that while the prosecution had proved the demand for a gold ring and chain at the time of ‘Chhoochhak’, this did not satisfy the legal definition of dowry for a conviction under Section 304B.
In its analysis, the Court stated:
“When the above is juxtaposed with paragraph 21 of Satvir Singh (supra), we find that the said demand made for gold ornaments at the time of the Chhoochhak ceremony cannot be considered to be a dowry demand. It could have been a demand which was made not in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but at the time of the birth of the child, whereas a dowry demand within the meaning and scope of 304B IPC should be any property or security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage.”
Consequently, the Bench held that the invocation of Section 304B against the accused was not justified.
However, regarding the offence under Section 498A (Cruelty), the Court affirmed the findings of the High Court. The Bench noted that prosecution witnesses, including Nainu Khan (PW-5) and Munir Khan (PW-13), had testified that the deceased was “not being kept in a good condition” and that they had heard her weeping. The Court concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part with the following directions:
- Section 304B IPC: The conviction and sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment were set aside.
- Section 498A IPC: The conviction was sustained.
Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that the appellant had been sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A by the Sessions Court. The records indicated that the appellant had already undergone rigorous imprisonment for one year and five months.
The Court held:
“Consequently, since his incarceration has been much more than what had been imposed by the Sessions Court, and was affirmed by the High Court, we find that it is not just and proper to impose any further sentence on the appellant herein.”
As the appellant was on suspension of sentence and bail, his bail bonds were cancelled.
