The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a demand for money to meet legal expenses for a bail application does not constitute a “dowry” demand under the Indian Penal Code. A Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice D. M. Vyas upheld the acquittal of four family members, citing the prosecution’s failure to prove both the cause of death and that the alleged harassment was related to dowry.
The judgment, dated June 26, 2025, confirmed a 2013 decision by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli, which had acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 304(B) (dowry death), 306 (abetment of suicide), 498(A) (cruelty), and 114 of the IPC.
Background of the Case
The case was initiated by the State of Gujarat, appealing the acquittal of Natubhai Golanbhai Khuman and three others. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, who was married on January 16, 2011, was harassed for money, leading to her suicide on August 29, 2011.
According to the prosecution, about six months after the marriage, the deceased’s husband, father-in-law, and brother-in-law were arrested in a separate criminal case related to document fabrication. It was alleged that the father-in-law directed the other accused (mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and another brother-in-law) to insist the deceased arrange ₹50,000 from her father to cover legal expenses for bail.
The prosecution claimed that while the deceased’s father provided ₹10,000, the accused were not satisfied and continued to harass her for the remaining amount. Unable to bear the harassment, she allegedly committed suicide by consuming poison.
The trial court acquitted all four accused, prompting the state to appeal to the High Court.
The High Court’s Analysis
On the Cause of Death
The Court noted a critical lack of medical evidence to definitively prove suicide by poisoning. The doctor who conducted the autopsy initially cited the cause of death as “shock due to cardio-respiratory failure” and preserved the viscera for further analysis. The judgment points out that the doctor, in his court testimony, “clearly stated in his evidence that since viscera is not examined, he is not certain whether failure of lung and heart is due to poison or not.”
The Court concluded, “Therefore, the prosecution has basically and miserably failed to prove that the deceased has taken poison and died, with any acceptable legal evidence to that effect.”
On the Nature of the Demand
The bench critically analyzed whether the demand for money for legal fees could be classified as a “dowry” demand, a necessary ingredient for a charge under Section 304(B) IPC. The Court observed that “dowry,” as defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, must be a demand for money or valuable security in connection with the marriage.
The Court found that the prosecution’s own case was that the demand was for meeting legal expenses. It held, “Strictly speaking, in our considered view, it does not come within the meaning of ‘dowry’ as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for the purpose of proving a case under Section 304(B) of IPC.”
Furthermore, the Court found the allegation of the demand itself to be “doubtful.” The accused had produced bank statements showing a balance of “about Rs. 2 to 3 Lacs” in their accounts at the time, leading the court to question why they would need to demand ₹50,000.
On Abetment and Cruelty Charges
The Court also dismissed the charges under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498(A) (cruelty). To prove abetment, the court noted that the prosecution must establish instigation or aiding of the suicide under Section 107 of the IPC. The judgment states, “It is not at all case of the prosecution that any of the accused herein has instigated her, directly or indirectly, or aided her in any other way to commit suicide.”
As the court had already determined that there was no harassment in connection with a dowry demand, the charge under Section 498(A) was also found to be not made out.
Final Decision
In its concluding remarks, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s findings, stating that it “arrived at a right conclusion and held that prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges levelled against them.” The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The appeal by the State was dismissed, and the acquittal of all respondents was confirmed.
