Lucknow: A bench of Allahabad high court, while hearing a dowry death case, has made an important social observation that a woman repeatedly approaching her parental family with complaints of dowry harassment should not be dismissed as merely a routine marital dispute. Her complaints could be a genuine plea for help, protection and timely intervention, the court said. The court observed that it is the moral and social responsibility of the family to believe the daughter’s complaints and take immediate steps to ensure her safety and dignity.A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice AK Chaudhary made the observations while deciding criminal appeals filed by the accused in a 2011 dowry death case from Shravasti.The court said women facing dowry harassment are often advised by their families to ‘compromise’, ‘adjust’ or ‘save the marriage’. Such advice, though sometimes given with good intentions, can inadvertently embolden those responsible for the harassment and force the victim to continue suffering, it observed. Timely intervention in the present case could possibly have saved the woman’s life, the court said.The bench further observed that while it is necessary to prosecute and punish offenders through the judicial process, such action cannot substitute for timely intervention that could have prevented the death of a woman.The court said Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC are not intended merely to punish offenders after a crime has been committed, but also to prevent such offences and provide effective legal protection to married women.The court furthermore observed that the fight against the social evil of dowry cannot be left to the courts alone. Families, relatives, communities and society have a collective responsibility to ensure that a woman is not forced to silently endure harassment. Her complaints must be taken seriously and addressed in time, it said. “No judicial decision can bring back a life that has been lost,” the court observed, stressing the need to listen to a daughter’s plea for help before it turns into a tragedy.With above remarks in its verdict, the bench upheld the conviction of the deceased’s husband Dinesh Kumar and family members Sheshraj, Nanbabu, Bade Lal Kori and Bitta Devi under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.However, the court modified their life sentences under Section 304B to the period already undergone in custody. The court held that the trial court had not assigned sufficient reasons for imposing life imprisonment. Section 304B provides for imprisonment of not less than seven years, which may extend to life imprisonment and life imprisonment is not mandatory in every case, the court noted.The court also took into consideration that the accused had no previous criminal history and had already spent several years in custody. Dinesh and Sheshraj had undergone more than 17 years, Nanbabu more than 14 years, Bade Lal around 13 years and Bitta Devi around nine years in custody, including remission.The court consequently directed that Dinesh, Sheshraj and Nanbabu be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. Bade Lal and Bitta Devi were already on bail.During the hearing, the court found that the deceased Meena Devi had informed her sister-in-law, brother and mother that she was being repeatedly harassed over dowry. The court noted that around eight to 10 days before the incident, Meena had called her family members in tears and told them that her in-laws were demanding Rs 1 lakh and a motorcycle. She had also allegedly been threatened that she and her mother would be killed if the demand was not fulfilled. Despite this, her family advised her to bear the situation for some more time and try for a compromise.
