Demand for Share in Ancestral Property Made Under Spousal Pressure Can Amount to Dowry Demand: Calcutta HC

Calcutta: A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that a wife's demand for her lawful share in ancestral property does not fall outside the scope of a dowry demand if such a demand was made at the insistence and under the pressure of her husband, while partly allowing an appeal against conviction in a dowry death case and acquitting the parents-in-law of the deceased for want of evidence.

The Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray was hearing two connected appeals filed against a 2017 judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Uluberia, convicting the husband and his parents under Sections 498A, 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had sentenced the husband, referred to here as XYZ, to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 304B/34 IPC, while his parents were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine.

According to the prosecution, the marriage had taken place in April 2010, after which the appellant and his family allegedly began demanding further money and subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty. The deceased had repeatedly asked her brother to sell their ancestral property and hand over her share of the proceeds. On 23.06.2014, her brother received a phone call about an incident at the matrimonial home and, upon reaching there, found the deceased and her minor daughter hanging from the ceiling. The trial court, on considering the evidence, acquitted the accused of the murder charge but convicted them of cruelty and dowry death, holding that the deceased's death was suicidal while that of the child was homicidal at the hands of her mother.

Counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court had proceeded on assumptions and surmises, ignoring a two-day delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of any specific dowry demand attributable to the husband, hostile witnesses who did not support the cruelty allegations, and a suicide note, corroborated by handwriting expert opinion, in which the deceased had exonerated her husband and in-laws. It was contended that a demand for a share in ancestral property could not, in law, be equated with a dowry demand.

The Court rejected the argument based on delay in lodging the FIR, observing that the sudden death of a sister and her infant child could reasonably leave close relatives in a state of shock and indecision before approaching the police.

Taking legal advice on such a scenario is the most reasoned step.

the Bench observed, adding that such delay could not be treated as fatal to the prosecution case.

On the substance of the dowry allegation, the Court held that although a woman is entitled in law to claim her share in ancestral property, such a claim, when shown to be the outcome of continuous pressure exerted by the husband, would fall within the broader meaning of a dowry demand under the Dowry Prohibition Act. 

The Bench relied on the evidence of the victim's brother, who deposed that portions of the ancestral property had been sold at the deceased's request and the proceeds shared with her, and noted that the suicide note referred to a threat of a second marriage if the money was not arranged, which the Court found indicative of the pressure that ultimately drove the deceased to end her life along with her daughter's.

Such delay cannot give a fatal blow to the prosecution case.

However, examining the case against the parents-in-law separately, the Court found no substantive evidence connecting them to the offence. It noted that the brother, despite naming them in the FIR, did not implicate them in his deposition before the trial court, and that no other witness gave clinching evidence of their active participation in any dowry demand. The Bench accordingly acquitted the parents-in-law of all charges, holding that the trial court's findings against them did not inspire confidence.

On sentence, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Hari Om v. State of Haryana, the Bench held that life imprisonment under Section 304B IPC is not mandatory in every case and is meant to be reserved for rare cases, while a sentence between seven years and life remains within the court's discretion depending on the facts. Since the case did not fall within that rare category, the Court reduced the husband's sentence from life imprisonment to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, while leaving the sentence of fine undisturbed.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the husband was allowed in part, with the conviction under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC upheld but the sentence modified, while the appeal filed by the parents-in-law was allowed in full and their bail bonds discharged.

Appearances: 

For the Appellants: Mr. Avishek Sinha, Advocate, and Ms. Madhusree Banerjee, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Debasish Roy, Learned Public Prosecutor, along with Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, Advocate, and Ms. Nandini Chatterjee, Advocate.

Case Title: XYZ versus The State of West Bengal