The Supreme Court indicated in a judgment that a straitjacket and literal interpretation of a penal provision on dowry death may have blunted the battle against the “long-standing social evil”.
Daily Current Affairs Quiz 2021
Dowry deaths accounted for 40% to 50% homicides in the country for almost a decade from 1999 to 2018. In 2019 alone, 7,115 cases of dowry death were registered under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
But, Courts have often opted for a strict and narrow reading of the Section 304-B, which was one of the many legal initiatives introduced against dowry.
In a recent judgement, The Supreme Court said that courts should instead interpret Section 304-B liberally while keeping in mind the law’s intention to punish dowry and bride-burning.
According to Section 304-B, to make out a case of dowry death, a woman should have died of burns or other bodily injuries or “otherwise than under normal circumstances” within seven years of her marriage. She should have suffered cruelty or harassment from her husband or in-laws “soon before her death” in connection with demand for dowry.
Over the years, courts had interpreted the phrase ‘soon before’ in Section 304-B as ‘immediately before’. This interpretation would make it necessary for a woman to have been harassed moments before she died.
Such “absurd” interpretations should be avoided, the apex court noted. Instead, the prosecution needed to show only a “proximate and live link” between the harassment and her death.
The court further said the phrase “otherwise than under normal circumstances” in the Section also calls for a liberal interpretation.
The judgment also raised concern about the casual way in which trial courts examined accused persons in dowry death cases under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
