WEST BENGAL<\/em>: The Calcutta High Court<\/a><\/strong> recently held that if a wife demands her lawful share in ancestral property<\/strong> because of pressure from her husband, such demand can come under the meaning of dowry demand<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Division Bench<\/strong> of Justice Arijit Banerjee <\/strong>and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray<\/strong> gave this finding while partly allowing an appeal filed against conviction in a dowry death case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court made it clear that a woman has a legal right to ask for her share in ancestral property. However, if such demand is not her independent decision and is made because the husband is forcing or pressuring her to bring money from her parental home, then it may become a dowry demand in law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “It is true that a lady can demand her share in her ancestral property but when such demand appears to be a result of direction and pressure from her husband, we cannot say that such demand would not come under the broader term of ‘dowry demand’,”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The case was related to the death of a woman and her minor daughter, who were found hanging in the matrimonial home in June 2014. The marriage had taken place around four years before the incident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The trial court had found that the woman died by suicide and had also caused the death of her daughter before ending her own life. The trial court convicted the husband and his parents for cruelty and dowry death. The husband was sentenced to life imprisonment<\/strong>, while his parents were sentenced to seven years\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before the High Court, the husband argued that there was no proof of dowry demand<\/strong>. He said that the woman had only asked for her lawful share in her ancestral property, which cannot be treated as dowry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the High Court examined the evidence and noted that the woman\u2019s brother had earlier sold some portions of the family\u2019s ancestral property and had given her share of the sale money. Even after this, the husband continued to pressure the woman to ask her brother to sell the remaining ancestral property<\/strong> and give money according to her share.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court said that although a woman can legally ask for her share in ancestral property, the facts of this case showed that the demand was being pushed by the husband. The money was being demanded from the woman\u2019s parental home under pressure. Because of this, the Court held that the demand came within the scope of dowry demand<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also rejected the argument that there were no independent witnesses to support the prosecution case. It observed that dowry demands are usually made inside the matrimonial home and not openly before outsiders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband also argued that the FIR <\/a>was not reliable because it was filed two days after the incident and the complainant<\/strong>, who was the deceased woman\u2019s elder brother, had taken legal advice before filing it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court rejected this argument and held that the delay in filing the FIR did not destroy the prosecution case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “When an unfortunate incident of death of one\u2019s sister and her baby child occurred, suddenly, it may make the close relatives stunned and speechless and they might have been placed in a state of indecisiveness. In our view, such delay cannot give a fatal blow to the prosecution case. Moreover, taking legal advice on such a scenario is the most reasoned step on the part of the defacto complainant,”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n At the same time, the High Court found that there was no strong evidence against the parents-in-law<\/strong>. The complainant had not clearly blamed them during trial, and no witness had specifically stated their role in the alleged cruelty or dowry demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court therefore acquitted the parents-in-law of all charges. This part of the judgment is important because it shows that family members cannot be punished only because they are related to the husband. Specific evidence is necessary against each accused person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court upheld the conviction of the husband but reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years\u2019 rigorous imprisonment. It observed that life imprisonment under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code<\/a><\/strong>, dealing with dowry death, should be reserved for rare cases.\n
\n
<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nEXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS MENTIONED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
LAW \/ SECTION<\/strong><\/td> WHAT IT MEANS<\/strong><\/td> HOW IT WAS RELEVANT IN THIS CASE<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 498A IPC<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Cruelty by husband or his relatives against a married woman.<\/td> The husband and parents-in-law were convicted by the trial court for cruelty. High Court upheld it against the husband but acquitted the parents-in-law due to lack of specific evidence.<\/td><\/tr> Section 304B IPC<\/strong><\/td> Dowry death. Applies when a woman dies unnaturally within 7 years of marriage and soon before death she faced cruelty or harassment for dowry.<\/td> The wife died around 4 years after marriage. High Court held that pressure to bring money from ancestral property share could fall under dowry demand.<\/td><\/tr> Section 34 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Common intention. Used when several persons act together for the same criminal purpose.<\/td> Trial court applied it against husband and parents-in-law. High Court found no cogent evidence against the parents-in-law and acquitted them.<\/td><\/tr> Section 302 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Murder.<\/td> FIR included Section 302 IPC, but trial court found murder was not proved. High Court did not interfere with that finding.<\/td><\/tr> Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Section 3 punishes giving\/taking dowry. Section 4 punishes demanding dowry.<\/td> Charge-sheet mentioned these sections, as the prosecution alleged demand of money\/property-related benefit.<\/td><\/tr> Section 113B, Evidence Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Presumption as to dowry death. Court may presume dowry death if ingredients of Section 304B IPC are shown.<\/td> High Court held that the prosecution proved the ingredients of Section 304B IPC against the husband, so presumption under Section 113B applied.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nCOUNSELS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
PARTY<\/strong><\/td> COUNSEL<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Appellants<\/strong><\/td> Mr. Avishek Sinha, Advocate<\/td><\/tr> Appellants<\/strong><\/td> Ms. Madhusree Banerjee, Advocate<\/td><\/tr> State<\/strong><\/td> Mr. Debasish Roy, Learned Public Prosecutor<\/td><\/tr> State<\/strong><\/td> Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, Advocate<\/td><\/tr> State<\/strong><\/td> Ms. Nandini Chatterjee, Advocate<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n