TABLE OF CONTENTS

FACTS OF THE CASE.........................................................................................................................2

LEGAL HISTORY................................................................................................................................3

ISSUES.................................................................................................................................................3

DECISIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.....................4

HELD....................................................................................................................................................4

BENCH.................................................................................................................................................4

OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.................................................................................4

COMMENTS........................................................................................................................................5

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT.................................................................................7

CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................8

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE.................................................................................................................8

FACTS OF THE CASE

This is a case of suspicious dowry-death that was appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Dattaraj (Hereinafter “accused”) married Savita on 7.6.2002 with a dowry of Rs.21000 and
three tolas of gold which was a demand which was independently fulfilled by the side of the
to be bride, Savita, Soon after the marriage, “Accused” went to Dubai leaving his wife at his
home. Savita didn’t feel comfortable at her matrimonial home because of absence of her
husband and soon decided to leave to her parents’ house till the time of return of her husband,
the in-laws of Savita wanted to buy some land and hence they informed Savita to demand Rs.
20,000 from her parents so as to enable the purchase of land, the parent of Savita were
financially incapable and they informed her in-laws about their helplessness to provide any
monetary support, the accused and his family became dissatisfied as their demand wasn’t
fulfilled by Savita’s Parents and hence she became subject to everyday mental trauma and
torture followed by ignorance by her husband as well. On return from Dubai, The “Accused”
demanded 3 tolas of gold and apparels to attend a pooja on the installation of a new borewell
at Savita’s parents’ house of Savita. This time however Savita’s Parents were able to fulfil
their demands. Meanwhile, Savita delivered a female child and was living at her matrimonial
house. On an occasion when the “Accused” visited his in-laws with his wife made a monetary
demand and Savita’s parents expressed their inability, consequently a quarrel erupted. Savita
at her matrimonial house was treated with contempt for bringing insufficient gifts from her
parents, by all the accused persons, Ningesh, Siddappa also known as Siddaraj and
Revamma, the father, brother and mother of the “Accused” respectively. On another
occasion, the “accused” demanded a sewing machine which was also complied with. Despite
all similar compliances, Savita was harassed, ill-treated and even assaulted by her in-laws.

Suddenly on 1.9.2006, Savita died of burn injuries and the body was lying in the mortuary.
Tukkubai and Dattatry mother and brother of Savita immediately went to the hospital. On
ascertaining the absence of anyone from the matrimonial house, Tukkubai filed a complaint
on 2.9.2006 alleging murder of her daughter by citing all the dowry demands of Dattaraj and
his family. The defense side remarked this incident ‘a case of suicide by the over-sensitive
Savita’. However, a charge sheet was filed against Dattaraj, his father, brother, and mother
under various sections of IPC. The section 304B was also invoked since the death of Savita
took place within seven years of her marriage.1
1
Bhupendra v. State of M.P., (2014) 2 SCC 106.

2
LEGAL HISTORY

The case arose as per the provisions under Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 in accordance of
sections 32,43 and 64 read along with sections 304-B5 and 498-A6 of the Indian Penal
Code,1860. The proximity test of the possibility of the death caused due to demand of dowry
was applied. Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka vs. Dattaraj has held that alleged demand
of dowry about two years before the death of the Wife would not satisfy the requirement of
“soon before her death” contemplated under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code,1860.
The legislation are in order to ensure the welfare of a women so as to avoid the intended and
traditional harassment of women engraved in the history of the country. However, these
legislation are not to be blanketly considered and hence there must be a reasonable
satisfaction to the court in order to convict a person under such strict laws and regulations,
which entails that no stone should be left unturned when it comes proving the existence of
guilt.7

ISSUES

1. Whether the death caused by the pressure sustained from the side of groom can
amount to dowry death provided the remoteness of the act ?

2
The aforementioned section deals with the Penalty for giving or taking dowry, it implies if any person takes or
abets the practice of dowry he shall be imprisoned for a term not less than five years and with fine not less
than
fifteen thousand rupees or both.
3
The aforementioned section deals with Penalty for demanding dowry which entails that if any person from the
side of the groom demands directly or indirectly from the relatives of bridegroom, dowry, he shall be liable for
imprisonment not less than six month and may extend up to two years given the circumstances of the case.
4
The aforementioned section entails the benefit of the given dowry to be transferred to the benefit of the bride
and in case of death or absence of the bride to her next legal heir, this section acts as a protective barrier so
that
in case a wrong has been done by the side of groom in pursuance of demand of dowry it must be given for the
welfare of the women or in case she is unable to derive benefit from the said transaction, then to the next
rightful
legal heir, if the benefit fails to transfer then it raises criminal liability for the person(s) who were directed to
facilitate such transaction.
5
The said provision deals with the criminal implications incurred as a result of death of a women within 7
years of her marriage, it states- “where the death of a women 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 deemed to have caused that death”.
6
It states- “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women, subjects such women to
cruelty
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable for
fine”.
7
Venkateshwar Rao v. State of A.P., (2014) 2 SCC 477.

3
 2. Can the relatives including the parents be made liable for the occurrence of the death
of the women?

DECISIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

The trial court convicted all the four accused persons for the offenses under IPC 8 and Dowry
Act9 and sentenced them imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court convicted Dattaraj
and acquitted all the other three persons.10

HELD

The decision was reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court citing the remoteness of the act by
applying the Proximity Test as the act was too remote to be considered under the ambit of the
penal provisions for which the respondent

BENCH

Hon’ble Justice J.S. Khehar and Hon’ble justice S.A. Bobde.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

Admitting the criminal appeal11, the court made the following observations:

1. On the statement of the cross-examination of Tukkabai, mother of Savita, the following

facts were considered.

a) Dattaraj remained in India for one year and Savita stayed for 5 months at her parents’
home and gave birth to a female child.
b) Savita’s parents gifted gold ornaments to the child as it is customary.
c) They also presented gold and clothes to Dattaraj on returning from a foreign country.
d) At the end of the cradle ceremony, the in-laws of Savita presented the parents of
Savita with four tons of sugarcane seeds and one bag of jowar, as a token of
customary practice.

8
Indian Penal Code, 1861.
9
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act no. 28 of 1961).
10
From the judgement and order dated 30.06.2009 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, Circuit Bench
at Gulbarga in Cri. A. No. 3514 of 2008.
11
Criminal Appeal no. 326 of 2012.

4
 e) It is also true that there is a custom to present gold and clothes to the son-in-law at the
time of pooja to borewell.
f) The sewing machine was presented to the daughter by the parents voluntarily, as
Savita knew tailoring.
g) It is untrue to state that Savita did not like her husband’s second trip to Dubai.

2. As evidenced by the aforesaid statements of Tukkabai it is understandable that both the

families exchanged gifts.

3. The theory of ‘soon before death’ will not apply to the instance in which the father of
Dattaraj demanded Rs.20,000 for the purchase of land when Dattaraj was in Dubai, as it
happened two years before the death of Savita. Hence, the demand for money from the
parents of Savita was ‘too remote to occurrence’ contemplated in IPC under section
304(1).

4. Another alleged dowry demand of sewing machine is not true from the fact that it was
given to the daughter by her parents. It was really gifted to her and does not form part of
the demand by Dattaraj. So, the allegation remains inconsequential.

5. The prosecution failed to prove any harassment or violence on Savita by the accused
persons 2 to 4 so as to pinup culpability to the accused persons.

6. The statements of Tukkabai and Dattatry did not attribute any overt act or violence on
Savita by the accused persons A2, A3, and A4.

7. The High Court was justified in acquitting the brother, father, and mother of Dattaraj
from the referred sections of IPC and Dowry Act.

COMMENTS

Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka vs. Dattaraj has held that alleged demand of dowry
about two years before the death of the Wife would not satisfy the requirement of “soon
before her death” contemplated under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

5
Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Jagdish Singh Khehar and S.A. Bobde upheld the
Karnataka High Court judgment acquitting the Husband and relatives accused in dowry death
case.

On the allegation that the father of the accused Husband made a demand of Rs.20,000/- for
the purchase of agricultural land, the court observed that it is apparent that the same was
allegedly made when Husband was in Dubai. “The said demand was allegedly made by
Ningesh (respondent – accused no.2), the father of Dattaraj, when he had gone to leave Savita
at her maternal home. Dattaraj is stated to have returned to India from Dubai eight to ten
months, after the above demand.

A female child was born to Savita about a year after the return of Dattaraj to India. After the
birth of the female child, Savita had remained in her maternal house, for about four to five
months. Therefore, even if the above oral allegation is accepted as correct, it was a demand
made about two years before the occurrence. The same was too remote to the occurrence, and
therefore, would not satisfy the requirement of “soon before her death” contemplated under
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, “ the Bench said.

The Court also observed that monetary gifts given to Husband and his family members, were
in the nature of customary gifts exchanged during different ceremonies, and the Husband’s
family has also given return gifts.

Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, on a recent judgment 12
rendered by a three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein Section 304B has
been explained to the effect, that the term “dowry” expressed therein, would not be limited to
the traditional meaning attached to the aforesaid expression, but would include a demand for
money for other purposes as well. 13 In this behalf it would be relevant to mention, that the
three-judge Bench did not accept the position expressed in Appasaheb’s case, in connection
whereof, this Court had first explained the position in the Appasaheb’s case , as under:-

This Court has spoken sometimes with divergent voices both on what would fall within
"dowry" as defined and what is meant by the expression "soon before her death". In a leading
case14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court construed the definition of dowry strictly, as it forms part
of Section 304-B which is part of a penal statute. The Court held that a demand for money for

12
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477.
13
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207.
14
Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721: (2007) 3 SCC (Cri.) 468.

6
defraying the expenses of manure made to a young wife who in turn made the same demand
to her father would be outside the definition of dowry. This Court said: “A demand for
money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic
expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word
is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show
that any demand for ‘dowry’ as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made
by the Appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic
expenses and for purchasing manure.” And thereupon, having examined the object and intent
of the legislation, The facts of this appeal are glaring. Demands for money were made shortly
after one year of the marriage. A she-buffalo was given by the father to the daughter as a
peace offering. The peace offering had no effect. 15 The daughter was ill-treated. She went
back to her father and demanded money again. The father, then, went along with his brother
and the Sarpanch of the village to the matrimonial home with a request that the daughter be
not ill-treated on account of the demand for money. The father also assured the said persons
that their money demand would be fulfilled and that they would have to wait till the crops of
his field are harvested. Fifteen days before her death, Salwinder Kaur again visited her
parents' house on being maltreated by her new family. Then came death by poisoning. The
cross-examination of the father of Salwinder Kaur has, in no manner, shaken his evidence.
On the facts, therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below are upheld.
The appeal is dismissed.” Based on the above decision it was the vehement contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant, that the demands made by the accused for purchase of
agricultural land, as also, with reference to a sewing machine, were liable to be treated as
demands constituting “dowry”.

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT

Citing the reasons furnished above the Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the
High court ‘does not justify any interference’, the appellant further failed to establish the
distinction between the customary practice in which gifts were exchange as a traditional
approach of celebrating events such as birth of a child etc and the explicit demand of dowry,
Further the remoteness of the series of events which led to the death of Savita indicated that
the respondent cannot be attributed as a contributor and abettor of the death of the women
and hence the alleged circumstances could have been the result of an accident caused during
cooking chores due to the negligence of the victim, the court also inspected the transactions
15
Supra Note Nr. 12.

7
which took place between the families over the course of 4 years of their marriage and found
that the exchange of favours were mutual and were done as per the prevailing traditions of the
community both the families belonged to, although there were certain circumstances in which
demand of monetary favours were raised by the side of the respondent but such demands
didn’t lead to any consequential event which can be made attributable under the laws dealing
with cruelty and death due to the demand of dowry, it was found by the court that neither the
respondent nor any of the family member or relative in question had no relation with the
resulting death and considering all the submission by both the sides the Hon’ble Supreme
Court upheld the decision of the trial Court further acquitting Dattaraj of the said offence and
hence the appeal by the appellant stood “Dismissed”.

CONCLUSION

The Apex Court recording the submissions and keeping the decisions given by the District
Court and subsequently by the High Court of Karnataka found the respondent not guilty of
the commission of the offence of dowry and subsequently dismissed the appeal by the State
of Karnataka.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

The Author after carefully and critically considering the facts and circumstances of the case
along with the submission of both the parties, along with the decisions given by both the
courts is of the opinion that the judgement rendered in the given case was highly assumptive
and liberal, given the class of society that both the families were coming from. Dowry is a
practice which has been plaguing India from the Ancient times and on multiple circumstances
it has been found that the malicious practice is flourishing in its entirety despite of multiple
and stringent legislation passed by the parliament in order to curb the evil practice, the main
objective of such legislation is for the welfare of the women as it is of no taboo that women
in India have been subject to cruelty and mental torture if the demands of dowry are not met
by their parents, however, the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court can safely be
said to follow the Black letters of Law, it ignored the practical aspect involved and attached
with the case, the controversial death of the women, repeated ignorance by her husband and
in-laws as well as absence of her in-laws after her death in the hospital were certain facts
which were overlooked by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Hence this judgement can become an escape vehicle for offenders related to dowry in the
future as this judgement has become a full proof precedent as it has been decided by the

8
Divisional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which can prove to be lethal for future
victims who can be deprived of justice if the technicalities and uneventful circumstances are
to be supported and hence it would defy the motive of the women welfare legislation which
can lead to unexpected results and hence can disrupt the society, however it is also to be
considered that the Apex Court was bound by the evidence and pleadings presented before
them and following the adversarial system of justice followed in India, the Apex Court had
little to no room for effectuating the order.
It can be safely concluded that the circumstances and evidence becomes of substance for the
courts to decide in cases involving acts like dowry and therefore, the case presented before
the courts must be dealt in consideration with the welfare of women so that their rights and
interests can always be protected.