Supreme Court in this case, held that the demand for dowry in connection with marriage was available so, Dowry Demand allegation is made out.
From Para 16,
This Court held that demand made for purchasing a computer, six months after the marriage, was not a demand in connection with marriage and was not a dowry demand within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Vipin Jaiswal is not applicable to the present case. Explanation to Section 304B of the IPC states that for the purpose of this sub-section, dowry shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, so far as it is material to this case, states that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage at or before or at any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said party. Thus, the emphasis is on property or valuable security given ‘at or before’ or ‘at any time after’ the marriage in connection with marriage. The amount or things demanded must, therefore, have a nexus with the marriage. In this case both the brothers i.e. PW-6 Satish Kumar and PW-7 Ashok Kumar, brothers of the deceased, have clearly stated that the accused were unhappy by the quality and quantity of the dowry and the deceased was being taunted and beaten-up for that. The words ‘insufficient and inferior quality of dowry’ are important. They indicate that the transaction of giving dowry was not complete. Sufficient quantity of dowry was not given and that transaction was sought to be completed by asking for Rs.60,000/- after the marriage for the business of the appellant. This demand has a connection with the marriage. Therefore, in our opinion Vipin Jaiswal is not applicable to the present case.
Doling out gyan in Para 25,
Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 201325. Before closing, the most commonplace argument must be dealt with. In all cases of bride burning it is submitted that independent witnesses have not been examined. When harassment and cruelty is meted out to a woman within the four walls of the matrimonial home, it is difficult to get independent witnesses to depose about it. Only the inmates of the house and the relatives of the husband, who cause the cruelty, witness it. Their servants, being under their obligation, would never depose against them. Proverbially, neighbours are slippery witnesses. Moreover, witnesses have a tendency to stay away from courts. This is more so with neighbours. In bride burning cases who else will, therefore, depose about the misery of the deceased bride except her parents or her relatives? It is time we accept this reality. We, therefore, reject this submission.
Citations: [2014 SUPREME 2 553], [2013 JT SC 15 9], [2014 ECRN 1 875], [2014 AIR SC 817], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 1009], [2014 SLT 3 24], [2013 AIOL 748], [2014 SCJ 1 701], [2014 CRIMES SC 1 355], [2014 CUTLT SUPPL 438], [2014 SCC CRI 4 769], [2014 SCC 4 129], [2013 SCC 10 691], [2014 CRI LJ 561], [2014 DMC SC 1 722], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 687], [2013 SCALE 13 691], [2014 CCR SC 1 671], [2014 ALT CRI 2 261], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL 1 535], [2014 AIC 133 174], [2014 AIR BOM R CRI 1 208], [2014 ALLCC 84 371], [2014 ALD CRI 1 687], [2013 AIR SC 6741]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10522469/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ee4b0149711415bdb
All Dowry related case laws are in this Index here.
