Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Dowry Death (S. 80 BNS)

Dowry, a long-standing social practice in India, has evolved into a serious societal concern due to its misuse and the violence associated with it. Despite being legally prohibited, the demand for dowry continues to persist across various sections of society, often leading to harassment, cruelty, and even the death of married women. One of the gravest manifestations of this issue is “dowry death,” which reflects the extreme consequences of greed and gender-based discrimination.

Section 80 of Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with dowry death. This provision aims to curb the rising number of unnatural deaths of married women caused by dowry-related harassment and to ensure strict punishment for the offenders. This article seeks to examine the concept of dowry death, its legal framework under the BNS, essential ingredients of the offence, and the judicial approach towards its interpretation and enforcement.

What is Dowry?

Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Act for short) defines dowry to mean any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to the marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party or by any other person to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the parties. But this does not include dower or mahr in case of Muslims.

It is either cash or jewellery or valuables, given at the time or before or after the marriage to one of the parties to the marriage, generally to the bride, by the parents or relations of the bride, in connection with the marriage.

In Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 8 SCC 633 case, the Supreme Court observed that there can be many other instances of payment of money or giving property to any of the spouses. For example some customary practices in connection with the birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of the term ‘dowry”

In Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763 case, the Supreme Court held that demand for money on account of financial stringency or for meeting urgent domestic expenses are not demand for dowry.

Dowry Death:

Section 80 BNS defines the offence of dowry death and makes provision to punish any offender thereby. This section is not gender neutral and operates under a presumption that it is always a woman who is the victim of dowry demands and is forced to die by the hands of her husband or/and her in laws for not fulfilling their never ending unreasonable demands for dowry.

S. 80 BNS:

Dowry Death:

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation:

For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

Whether such person is directly responsible for the death of the deceased or not by virtue of presumption, he is deemed to have committed the dowry death, if there was such cruelty or harassment, and the unnatural death occurred within seven years of the marriage. If there is proof of the person having intentionally caused her death, then it would attract Section 80 BNS, which deals with murder.

Essential Ingredients of Section 80 BNS:

• There is a death of a woman (homicidal or suicidal);
• The death of the woman is not natural;
• The death of the woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
• The death of the woman occurred within seven years of her marriage;
• She had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
• The cruelty or harassment should be for, or in connection with demand for dowry; and
• Such cruelty or harassment have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.

Understanding Phrase “soon before her death”:

The words ‘soon before her death’ used in Section 80 BNS and Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) means that there must be a proximate and live link i.e. a perceptible nexus between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. The time interval between the two must not be much.

In Hiralal v. State (Government of NCT) Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865 case, where a girl had committed suicide by consuming poison and her parents accused her husband and father in law to be responsible for her death as they claimed that they used to harass her and treat her with cruelty because of which she decided to commit suicide. The court while deciding in the favour of girl discussed the scope of the phrase ‘soon before death’. It held that any attempt to lay down a straight jacket formula to define this phrase would take away the merit of this section and therefore soon before death shall mean any reasonable time which should be enough to relate the cruelty with death. The cruelty done on the girl needs to be the cause of her death and therefore if there is sufficient time gap between the two acts and mental state of the girl at the time of commission of suicide cannot be said to be related to such cruelty, the application of this section can be negated.

In Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828 case, the Supreme Court held that the determination of the period which can come within the term ‘soon before’ is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression ‘soon before’ would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.

Meaning of the Term “Cruelty”:

In Shanti (Smt.) v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226 case, the supreme court said, “In Section 304B IPC (S. 80 BNS) there is no explanation about the meaning of ‘cruelty’ but, having regard to the common background of such offences, we have to take that the meaning of ‘cruelty or harassment’ will be the same as we find in the explanation to Section 498A IPC (S. 85 BNS) under which cruelty by itself amounts to an offence and is punishable”.

In Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 785 case, the Supreme Court held that there is no necessity of direct proof of causing death under S. 304B IPC (S. 80 BNS) and it is sufficient to be proved the fact of cruelty soon before the marriage that led to the unnatural death of woman. Since the appellant could not present any justification for wound on her neck, the death under unnatural circumstances was proved and punishment passed by session judge was upheld.

Legality of Marriage:

In Arun Garg vs. State of Punjab, 2004 (5) CTC 150 (SC) case, Any set of facts satisfying condition laid down in Section 304-B of IPC (S. 80 BNS) would attract Section 113-B of Evidence Act (S. 118 BSA). Section 113-B IPC (S. 118 BSA) is rule of evidence introduced to obviate the difficulty of prosecution to prove as to who caused the death of the victim. Section 113-B IPC (S. 118 BSA) creates a reputable presumption and accused can rebut the same by adding satisfactory evidence. Under section 498-A (S. 85 BNS) and section 304-B (S. 80 BNS) would attract only if the death is caused within seven years of marriage.

In Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, 2004 Cr.L.J.892 SC case, the Supreme Court discussed the applicability of anti dowry laws to cases where the validity of the marriage itself was in question. Justice Arijit Pasayat stated that “The expression ‘husband’ should be construed to cover a person who enters into a marital relationship and, under the color of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband, subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions i.e. section 304-B IPC (S. 80 BNS) and section 498-A IPC (S. 85 BNS). Whatever be the legitimacy of marriage , in cases of this nature statutes have to be purposively construed so as to give effect to the legislative intent and fulfill the purpose with which such provision was enacted. The absence of definition of ‘husband’ to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabits with such woman in the purported exercise of his role and status of husband is no ground to exclude them from the purview of sections 304-B IPC (S. 80 BNS) and 498-A IPC (S. 85 BNS) viewed in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing these provisions”. The Court also stated that in the man in illegal or void marriage is allowed to take the shelter of illegality of marriage to protect him from the application of this section, the legislative intent behind enacting this provision would fail. The primary object of this section is to protect the married woman from the violence and humiliation of man who is taking her in marriage or even in name of marriage and to prohibit him from treating her cruelly for not bringing appropriate dowry. Therefore, the court was of the view that even if the marriage is declared void or illegal at any later stage, it would not absolve the application of this section.

Punishment for Dowry Death:

Imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

Nature of Offence:

The offence is Cognizable, Non-bailable, Non-compundable and triable by the Court of Session

Evidence of Dowry Death:

S. 118 BSA:

Presumption as to Dowry Death:

When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

As per Section 118 BSA in a case related to dowry death, the prosecution has to prove only that a woman has died a non natural death within seven years of her marriage and she was being tortured or harassed before her death for dowry. If this can be proven then the law presumes that it is a case of dowry death and the burden of proving innocence is shifted on to the accused persons.

The expression “shall presume” in the Section 118 BSA indicates that it is mandatory and obligatory for the court to draw the inference, and no option is left to the court, but to take for granted and proceed on the supposition that the husband and other relatives have committed the dowry death. The court is bound to take the fact of dowry death as proved until very strong and positive evidence is given in rebuttal by the accused.

In Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828 case, the Supreme Court held that if a woman dies under unnatural circumstances and there is evidence of dowry-related harassment, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove that they did not cause her death.

In State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532 case, the Supreme Court discussed the necessity of section 113 B of IEA (S. 118 BSA) and stated that these acts of dowry demand and subjecting women to cruelty, violence and humiliation thereafter are all very private acts done inside the closed doors of a house. Therefore finding any direct evidence of these acts is not practical in most of the circumstances. This is why it is necessary to raise a presumption in this regard if some very basic facts could be proved. The legislative intent behind laying down a period of seven years within which any such presumption can be raised is because it is considered that if nothing happens within these seven years then the couple is supposed to have settled and therefore so no such event could happen at a later stage.

In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 Cr.L.J. 20 SC  case, the Court held that when an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation”.

Provisions Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):

Under Section 194 BNSS,  inquiry and report made by police in case of suicide or death under suspicious or unnatural circumstances. Hence it states that police shall inquire into such cases which would include the death of woman within seven years of marriage under suspicious circumstances. Section 196 BNSS further makes a provision that if even after the inquiry made by police under Section 194 BNSS is not found to be sufficient by the magistrate, he can himself hold an enquiry on the matter or appoint any other person on his behalf to do so.

Misuse of Sections 80 and 85 BNS:

In Sushil Kumar Sharma v. UOI, JT 2005(6) SC 266 case, the Supreme Court said that, “The object of these provisions is to prevent and control the menace of Dowry. But, many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question therefore is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intended provisions. Merely because these provisions are constitutional and intra vires, does not give a license to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations”.

Conclusion:

Dowry death remains one of the most disturbing manifestations of gender-based violence, reflecting deep-rooted social inequalities and harmful traditional practices. The provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) aim to strengthen legal mechanisms to combat such offenses by ensuring stricter accountability and clearer definitions. However, legislation alone cannot eradicate this menace. A combined effort involving legal enforcement, societal awareness, and a shift in cultural attitudes is essential. Empowering women, promoting education, and encouraging zero tolerance toward dowry practices are crucial steps forward. Ultimately, the true success of the law will depend not only on its implementation but also on society’s willingness to reject dowry in all its forms and uphold the dignity and rights of women.