State of Madhya Pradesh

Vs.

Jogendra & Anr.

INTRODUCTION

The key to the foundation of all law is the reason and the spirit of the law. Interpretation must
rest on the text and the context. They are the centres of understanding. If the text is the texture,
context is what gives colour. Neither can be overlooked. Both are important. That interpretation
is virtuous which constructs the textual interpretation same the contextual. A statute is best
construed when we know why it was endorsed.

" The duty of judicature is to act upon the true intention of the Legislature—the mens or
sententia legis ". The purpose of the Legislature integrates two aspects: In one aspect it
transmits the notion of "meaning”, what the words mean and, in other aspect, it suggests the
concept of "purpose and object" or the "reason and spirit" saturating amidst the statute. The
procedure of construction, therefore, associates both literal and purposive methods. The
legislative intention, the true or legal connotation of an enactment is derivative by considering
the meaning of the words mentioned in the enactment in the light of any apparent purpose or
object.

Recently SC also put light on various concepts and looked for the main intention and the
purpose of the legislature while authorising a judgement.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Some glaring facts of the case mentioned were that the victim was 18 years old when she got
married on 7th May, 1998. Prior to her marriage, Geeta Bai accompanied by her mother and
her brother used to stay with her maternal uncle, Bansi Lal. Geeta Bai committed suicide at her
matrimonial home by setting herself on fire using kerosene, in less than four years of her
marriage. She was hospitalised in a very critical condition in the Community Health Centre,
Baroda on 20th April, 2002 and succumbed to injuries. At that point of time, she was five
months pregnant.

JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT

The trial court after scrutinising the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence
found husband and father-in-law of the deceased guilty under Sections 304-B(dowry death),
306(abetment to commit suicide) and 498-A(harassment and cruelty to a women) IPC levied a
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life for the first offence, RI for a time of seven years
with fine and three years with fine for the second and third offence.

The verdict and sentence executed was mainly based on the evidence of decreased maternal
uncles who detailed that the decreased had been` continuously harassed, subjected to cruelty
and tortured for the money needed for constructing a house which her family members were
incapable to contribute.
JUDGEMENT OF THE HIGH COURT

When the matter went to the high Court, father-in-law of the decreased was given a clean chit
while the HC has reversed the decree of conviction in respect to the husband under Sections
304B and 306 IPC. However, the sentence of the husband of the decreased was continued under
Section 498-A IPC, but the decree of rigorous imprisonment for three years levied on him was
decreased to the period already undergone by him.

The reasoning given by the high court for the same was that the felony under Section 304-B
was not proven against them as the claim apparently made on the deceased was for money to
build a house, which cannot be considered as a dowry demand for relating her death to the said
cause.

The accused were also set free for the offence under Section 306 IPC as the High Court was of
the opinion that, from an examination of the testimonies of the relative of decreased there was
not anything to withstand the conclusion that the accused had abetted the deceased to commit
suicide.

SUBMISSION OF THE PROSECUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT

Aggrieved by the said judgment of the high court, prosecution filled an appeal in the Supreme
Court. The council claimed that High Court has failed to notice the aggravation suffered by the
deceased at the hands of the in-laws who had been continuously demanding money from the
decreased to construct a house and purchase a plot of land which ought to be considered as a
dowry demand and the High Court also did not count the testimonies of the relatives who had
consistently stated that whenever the deceased used pay a visit to her parental home, she would
complain that she was being exposed to cruelty to bring up a sum of ₹50,000/- [Rupees Fifty
thousand] for building a house and that it was due to this cruelty and harassment caused by
them that the deceased decided to end his life.

JUDGEMENT AND THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

The SC reversed an order of High Court that had cleared the charges of a husband and father-
in-law for a dowry death on the pretext that the decreased had herself demanded her family
members to provide money to build a house, which cannot be called as a dowry demand as
it does not meet the definition of dowry.
SC hold that the HC has erred in the reasoning by interpreting that the demand for money for
building a house does not come within the ambit of dowry. The Supreme Court held that the word
"dowry” has a wider interpretation than what it has been mentioned in the section 304B of Indian
Penal Code, it encompasses any demand made on a woman.

Supreme court focused on four pre-requisites for sentencing an accused for the offence
punishable under Section 304- B were:

(i) that the demise of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or happened
else than under normal condition;
(ii) that such a demise must have happened within a period of seven years of her marriage;

(iii) that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of her
husband, soon before her death; and

(iv) that such a brutality or aggravation must have been for or connected to any demand for
dowry.

Supreme Court affirm that any assets or property or valuable thing ask for by anyone stated in
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at or before or at any time after the marriage which is
reasonably associated to the death of a married woman, would certainly be in connection with
or in relation to the marriage unless, the facts and circumstances of a given case undoubtedly
and explicitly point otherwise
SC held that the trial Court has correctly interpreted the meaning of the dowry, the money
demanded comes under the pursuit of the definition of dowry. Coming to the question of dowry
death it was said by the court that there must be a link between the demand of dowry, cruelty
or harassment, based upon such demand and the date of consequential death. The assessment
of propinquity will have to be applied. But it is not a rigid test. It rests on the facts and
circumstances of each case and calls for a rational and delicate approach of the court within the
boundaries of law.
"The cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death. It should be
continuous. Such continuous harassment, physical or mental, by the accused should make life
of the deceased miserable which may force her to commit suicide," Justice Hima Kohli
Section 304B IPC recite in combination with Section 113B of the Evidence Act it places no
means of doubt that as soon as the prosecution has been able to establish that a woman has
been exposed to brutality or harassment for or in construction with any demand for dowry,
soon prior to her death, the court shall ensue on a assumption that the individual who has
subjected her to brutality or aggravation in relation with the demand for dowry, have caused a
dowry death within the meaning of Section 304B IPC - Justice Kohli recorded.

SC hold that the analysis of the trial Court was correct and the respondents deserved to be
convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

However, SC do not offer to look into the findings of the High Court that has acquitted the
respondents for the offence of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC, as the
prosecution could not place any conclusive evidence on record to reasonably establish that it
was due to the abetment on the part of the respondents that the deceased had committed suicide
by setting herself on fire.

It needs to be kept in mind that a bare mechanical interpretation of the words and application
of a legislative intent devoid of concept of purpose will reduce most of the remedial and
beneficent legislation to futility. As stated by Iyer J "to be literal in meaning is to see the skin
and miss the soul”.