Published On: 19th July 2025
Authored By: Shamika Pramanik
Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak
Abstract:
This article examines the legislative framework addressing dowry deaths in India, with particular focus on Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and related provisions. Through analysis of legislative history, judicial precedents, and implementation challenges, the paper evaluates the effectiveness of these provisions in addressing dowry-related crimes. The research reveals significant advancements in legal protections, coupled with persistent challenges in implementation and judicial interpretation. The article concludes with recommendations for legislative reforms and procedural improvement.
According to Criminal Revision No. 1401/2016, decided on 21.03.2017 by Hon’ble Judge Rajeev Kumar Dubey in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the applicant Sangeetabai alleged that only a few months after the marriage, her husband Pankaj and his family began harassing her for dowry, including physical abuse and demanding ₹2,00,000. She claimed to have been locked up without food, beaten by family members, and pressured to have her father pay plot installments. Sangeetabai is one of the few women who face challenges in her married life due to dowry. However, many women are not as fortunate, leading to some losing their lives in the process.
This leads us to the topic of Dowry, which, according to Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is defined as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, directly or indirectly, by one party to a marriage to the other, or by their parents or any other person, to either party or any other person, at any time in connection with the marriage.
Dowry death, on the other hand, refers to the instance 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. The same is mentioned in Section 304B of IPC. The law condemns whoever commits dowry death, and he is to be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
The instance of dowry deaths has significantly reduced in some states, but other states such as Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh still have high occurrences of dowry-related crimes. In 2022, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reported 6,450 cases of dowry-related deaths in India.
This leads to my thesis statement that the legal framework addressing dowry deaths in India has evolved significantly through legislative amendments and judicial interpretation. However, persistent implementation challenges and other factors continue to undermine its effectiveness in deterring dowry-related crimes.
Traditionally, dowry was not the negative practice we all know it as today. Historically, dowries were enshrined in religious and customary rules and were frequently viewed as a financial tool to safeguard the bride and ensure the stability of the marriage. Over time, this practice has led to gender discrimination, lack of financial independence in women, leading to many women choosing to be unmarried (due to not having the financial means to pay for dowry), objectification of women, and lastly, crime against women. This worldwide practice has now been deemed a social evil and has been prohibited in multiple countries, including India. However, these practices still continue to occur.
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, was hence created to address this social evil, and deem anyone who gives or takes dowry to be liable to punishment not less than five years, along with a fine that cannot be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the dowry’s worth, whichever is higher in both the options. Similar provisions are documented in the Criminal Law (Second Amendment Act), 1983, Section 304B & 498A of IPC, and Sections 113A & 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
As observed by the Law Commission of India in its 91st Report, the original Dowry Prohibition Act suffered from “inadequate definition, ineffective penalties, and problematic enforcement procedures,” which necessitated subsequent amendments.
Judicial Interpretation
The following are the ingredients that the Hon’ble Supreme Court established in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (1998), in order to trigger Section 304B, IPC:
-
A woman must die from burns, a physical injury, or another cause other than those that would be expected of her;
-
She must die within seven years of marriage; and
-
It must be demonstrated that she was cruelly treated or harassed by her husband or any of his family members shortly before she passed away.
Such abuse or harassment ought to be related to dowry demands.
This raises the question of whether the threat of “dowry death” has been effectively reduced by the government. The answer remains no, as multiple such cases are reported each year.
In Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991), the Supreme Court introduced Section 304B, and the court emphasized that the presumption under Section 113B would apply only when the prosecution establishes that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment “soon before her death.”
This interpretation was further expanded in Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003), where the Court emphasized that the phrase “soon before her death” cannot be confined to an exact time frame but must be interpreted in the context of the case. This ruling supported a broader interpretation of the law, aimed at effectively addressing dowry-related violence.
The court reiterated this approach in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015), holding that the time gap between dowry harassment and death should not be rigidly defined. Rather, it should be interpreted based on the overall pattern of abuse and its emotional effect on the victim.
The primary goal of Section 498A of IPC was to stop dowry harassment. The offense is non-compoundable (a complaint cannot be withdrawn once it has been filed, with the exception of Andhra Pradesh), non-bailable (the accused must appear in court to obtain bail), and cognizable (arrests are made without a warrant) upon a complaint submitted to the police officer by the victim or designated family members. However, there are multiple means to misuse this section. Some dishonest and unscrupulous women use it as a means of harassing and blackmailing the husband and his family members. These women and their families often file deceptive complaints under Section 498A with the intention of causing significant distress to her husband and in-laws. This is set up to put pressure on them to comply with his wife’s requests, often to gain money and power. Another drawback is that the concept of emotional abuse is not included in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, reflecting a narrow legislative focus.
Historically, criminal law has operated on the principle that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, if a woman passes away in an unnatural manner within seven years of marriage and there is proof of cruelty relating to the dowry “soon before her death,” Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act shifts this burden by assuming the husband and his family members are at fault. Critics argue that this stark difference from fundamental criminal jurisprudence risks jeopardising fair trial rights, especially when the assumption is applied rigidly.
Some legislative reforms I would suggest for the same are to firstly include the concept of emotional and psychological abuse in Section 498A of IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act. These concepts have not been clearly defined, although they are often very common among such situations. This would lead to better legal protection for victims.
Establishing independent bodies to monitor only cases relating to dowry death will also lead to quicker access to justice, rather than filing a case in a court and facing long delays in justice.
Reverse onus clauses also face criticism for compromising the assumption of every person tried in court to be innocent. Such clauses are also quite harsh and stringent. Rather, a balanced approach will be more favorable, where the presumption could be applied only along with the support of evidence. This would help prevent wrongful convictions and ensure that those who are not at fault are not unduly punished. It also maintains the integrity of the legal system.
Lastly, educational and awareness programs held regularly at schools will help spread awareness of the social evils of dowry and help prevent the upcoming generation from perpetuating these harmful practices. Spreading awareness of such topics through radio, advertisements, TV, and other media will not only inform the public but also inspire a cultural change, motivating individuals to challenge traditional norms and actively work toward eliminating dowry-related practices.
Hence, the path forward requires a multidimensional approach. Legislative reforms should focus on procedural enhancements to ensure efficient and fair investigations. The effectiveness of India’s legal response to dowry deaths ultimately depends not just on robust laws but on their implementation within a broader framework of gender equality initiatives. The true measure of success will be when these specialized provisions become increasingly unnecessary due to fundamental shifts in social attitudes toward gender equality and women’s dignity. The journey toward eradicating dowry deaths ultimately requires sustained commitment not just from legal institutions but from society as a whole.
