Widened Scope Of Section-304B

• The Supreme Court indicated in a judgment on Friday that a straitjacket and literal interpretation of a penal provision on dowry death may have blunted the battle against the "long-standing social evil".
• India reports the highest total number of dowry deaths with 8,391 such deaths reported in 2010, meaning there are 1.4 deaths per 100,000 women. Adjusted for population, Pakistan, with 2,000 per year, has the highest rate of dowry death at 2.45 per 100,000 women.
• Cruelty by a husband or his relatives (31.9%) followed by an assault on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty (27.6%) constituted the major share of crimes against women.
• Dowry deaths accounted for 40% to 50% of homicides in the country for almost a decade from 1999 to 2018. The judgment pronounced by a Bench, led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, called dowry harassment a "pestiferous" crime where women are subjected to cruelty by "covetous" husbands and in-laws.
• In 2019 alone, 7,115 cases of dowry death were registered under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
• Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, who authored the judgment, said courts should instead interpret Section 304-B liberally while keeping in mind the law’s intention to punish dowry and bride-burning.
• Bihar recorded the second highest number of dowry deaths and murders in the country after Uttar Pradesh, according to the national crime data for 2017 released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).
• According to Section 304-B, to make out a case of dowry death, a woman should have died of burns or other bodily injuries or "otherwise than under normal circumstances" within seven years of her marriage. She should have suffered cruelty or harassment from her husband or in-laws "soon before her death" in connection with the demand for dowry.
• Absurd interpretation

Over the years, courts had interpreted the phrase 'soon before' in Section 304-B as 'immediately before. This interpretation would make it necessary for a woman to have been harassed moments before she died. Such “absurd” interpretations should be avoided, the apex court noted.

• Instead, Chief Justice Ramana said the prosecution needed to show only a “proximate and live link” between the harassment and her death.
• “It is safe to deduce that when the legislature used the words ‘soon before’ they did not mean ‘immediately before’. Rather, they left its determination in the hands of the courts.
• The court further said the phrase "otherwise than under normal circumstances" in the Section also calls for a liberal interpretation. "Section 304-B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorising death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non-categorisation is due to the fact that death occurring in 'other than under normal circumstances can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental," Chief Justice Ra man noted.
• The judgment also raised concern about the casual way in which trial courts examined accused persons in dowry death cases under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The examination of the accused about the incriminatory material against him should be done in a fair manner. The court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. He should be given sufficient opportunity to give his side of the story. The court should question the accused fairly, with care and caution.