Signing you in

The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on dowry-related harassment while hearing a case linked to the death of a woman in Chhattisgarh who died by hanging within three years of her marriage. Refusing to interfere in the case, the court made sharp observations on the treatment often faced by brides and their families in matrimonial homes.

Also read | SC upholds arbitral award, slams MP road development body for 'deplorable' conduct

The case relates to a 2010 incident in which a woman died by hanging at her matrimonial home in Chhattisgarh. According to the prosecution, the husband and his family had allegedly subjected her to continuous harassment over dowry demands, including cash and a car, according to a report by Bar and Bench.

Also read | ‘Very traumatic’: SC asks Centre to ensure no repeat of 2024, 2026 NEET leaks

Both the trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the woman’s death took place under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, attracting the legal presumption of dowry death. Evidence placed before the courts pointed to repeated demands for money and cruelty “soon before” her death.

Medical evidence confirmed death due to hanging, but the courts found that the alleged harassment and financial coercion established a direct connection between the cruelty and the woman’s death.

Several members of the husband’s family were convicted under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the deceased woman’s younger brother-in-law, who sought relief from his conviction under Section 498A dealing with cruelty and harassment.

Also read | SC allows Vinesh Phogat to join Asian Games trials, takes exception to HC order

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the offence was not made out against his client. The court, however, remained unconvinced.

“You should be happy that it is only 498A and only three years,” Justice Nagarathna remarked.

Referring to allegations made in the case, Justice Nagarathna further observed, “What exactly did the boy’s family say? You people are beggars; you cannot pay. The girl’s family was pleading to save their daughter and they were being called beggars.”

When the counsel attempted to respond, the judge interrupted, saying, “You should have kept quiet. Bride’s father said they can give ₹60k and you call them beggars?”

The petitioner’s counsel also raised the issue of delay in filing the FIR, but the court did not accept the argument.

The Supreme Court eventually dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the lower courts.