The Supreme Court has issued multiple directions to governments, courts and authorities to address awareness, enforcement and long-pending cases relating to dowry harassment and deaths.In a strongly-worded judgment on Monday, the Supreme Court highlighted the widespread prevalence of the evil practice of dowry despite legal prohibition on the same.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said that although the law seeks to prohibit the practice, dowry has persisted in society cloaked as ‘gifts’ and social expectations.It also remains linked to harassment, cruelty and deaths of women within marriage, the Court said.
In view of the prevailing cases of dowry harassment and death, the Supreme Court issued the following directions to governments, courts and authorities to address awareness, enforcement and long-pending cases.It said the States and the Union Government should consider incorporating constitutional values of equality in educational curricula to address dowry at the level of social conditioning.
There should be proper appointment, empowerment and public visibility of Dowry Prohibition Officers, it further said adding that periodic training should be provided to police officers and judicial officers to sensitise them to the social and psychological dimensions of dowry-related cases and to distinguish genuine cases from misuse. Besides High Courts should take stock of long-pending cases under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A IPC (cruelty to women by husband or his relatives) and ensure their expeditious disposal.
The Court was hearing criminal appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in a dowry death case.The appeals arose from the death of a 20-year-old woman who had been married for just over a year and was repeatedly subjected to demands for a colour television, a motorcycle and ₹15,000 in cash.The trial court had convicted her husband Ajmal Beg and his mother Jamila Beg under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Allahabad High Court, however, reversed the conviction in 2003.
The top court set aside the acquittal of the two accused after noting that the High Court had misdirected itself in law and on facts. “The High Court has erred in setting aside the judgment of conviction returned by the Additional District Judge, Bijnor,” the Bench held and restored the conviction and sentence.The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that poverty made the dowry demand improbable.
Such a conclusion does not appeal to reason, the Court said. It also clarified that the Dowry Prohibition Act does not distinguish between demands made before or after marriage.While restoring the conviction of both accused, the Court refrained from incarcerating Jamila Beg after noting that she was 94 years old and that imprisonment would serve no fruitful purpose in the attending facts.
Follow us
