Dowry is a social practice that has existed for centuries and continues to harm Indian society. Despite laws like the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 and provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which have now been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) of 2023, dowry deaths are still alarmingly common. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in its 2022 report recorded 6,516 cases of dowry deaths across India, reflecting an alarming average of nearly 18 women losing their lives to this offence each day. The ongoing occurrence of these cases raises important questions about how effective the legal system is, the weaknesses in legislation, and the general unwillingness in society to address this issue.
The legal framework addressing dowry deaths mainly consists of three pillars:
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 80 has replaced Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This provision defines dowry death and imposes a punishment that shall not be less than seven years, which may extend to life imprisonment. While retaining the substantive framework of the earlier IPC provision, the section seeks to provide greater clarity in language and structure.
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023
Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), corresponding to the erstwhile Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, lays down a presumption in cases of dowry death. According to this section, in cases where a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that she endured dowry-linked harassment or cruelty, the Court shall treat her husband or his relatives as being responsible, unless proved otherwise. The presumption is mandatory but rebuttable, requiring proof of cruelty/harassment soon before death for the presumption to apply.
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
This Act bans the giving or taking of dowry but has proved largely ineffective due to weak enforcement, outdated penalties, and societal reluctance to report. In 2022, over 13,000 cases were filed under the Act, which is a small fraction compared to women reporting related cruelty or death.
The judiciary has had a significant role in shaping the interpretation of dowry death laws. However, its approach has sometimes been inconsistent and lenient.
Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2021, SC)
The Court clarified that to prove a dowry death, the prosecution must demonstrate that harassment occurred “soon before her death,” linking cruelty to the cause of death.
Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017, SC)
The Court has emphasized that once the foundational facts establishing cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry are proved, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 must be invoked against the accused.
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000, SC)
The Court criticized the rising misuse of dowry demands and highlighted the need for a strict interpretation to protect victims.
Sunil Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024, SC) – The Court upheld the husband’s conviction under dowry death provisions, stating that “domestic cruelty linked to dowry demands cannot be dismissed as ordinary marital discord.”
The Bombay High Court (2024, Nagpur Bench) recently acquitted a husband, citing a lack of a “close link between dowry demand and death.” This decision raised concerns about whether courts are setting overly high standards for conviction.
Other recent Supreme Court judgments (2024) have set aside convictions, emphasizing that unless all statutory elements—death within seven years, cruelty/harassment related to dowry “soon before death”—are strictly proven, the presumption cannot be used by prosecution.
While courts have sometimes improved protections, they are also criticized for high acquittal rates. NCRB data shows that thousands of dowry death cases are reported each year, but conviction rates for dowry death offences are extremely low—often below 15% in many states, and less than 2% overall at trial. This reflects problems in investigations, inefficiencies in prosecutions, and interpretations by the judiciary. Critics note that the court's insistence on strict proof requirements often undermines the intent of laws designed to combat this social issue.
The shift from IPC to BNS is a significant step, but its effects on dowry cases are not fully clear. Section 80 of the BNS continues the legal framework earlier contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding dowry deaths, but restructures the provision with clearer and more precise wording to avoid ambiguity. Courts must ensure that this continuity leads to stronger enforcement rather than debates over wording. Some scholars argue that the seven-year time limit in Section 80 is arbitrary since harassment related to dowry can last much longer. Judicial recognition of this limitation has been minimal, leaving the issue unresolved.
Although the Dowry Prohibition Act makes dowry transactions a crime, it has several weaknesses:
Low penalties, with imprisonment for only up to 5 years or a fine.
Weak enforcement of dowry laws, particularly the infrequent prosecution of dowry givers despite statutory prohibitions, has contributed to the persistence of the dowry system and perpetuated the cycle of abuse.
Failure to address indirect forms of dowry, like gifts disguised as “voluntary contributions.”
The judiciary has sometimes pointed out these shortcomings. In Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015, SC), the Court called for stricter interpretations of the Act, but no significant amendments have been made. With rising economic demands and increases in dowry expectations, the Act seems outdated.
A significant critique of the judiciary is its passive approach. Despite the alarming rise in dowry deaths, many judgments focus narrowly on technical issues, such as contradictions in witness statements or gaps in the requirement of evidence “soon before death.” This avoids taking a victim-centered stance. Legal scholars argue that this conservative approach by the judiciary contributes to a sense of impunity among perpetrators, who may believe that acquittal is likely.
It is essential to recognize positive judicial trends:
Courts have increasingly applied the presumption under Section 118 BSA more rigorously in recent years.
Several judgments from 2022 to 2024 have upheld convictions where circumstantial evidence strongly indicated harassment.
Some High Courts have emphasized the need for speedy trials in dowry death cases to prevent delays.
However, these measures remain disconnected and insufficient compared to the scale of the issue.
Dowry deaths in India illustrate a troubling contradiction: laws exist, but victims often do not see justice. The judiciary has played a key role in shaping the law, but it has sometimes hesitated to apply statutory presumptions fully, which weakens their deterrent effect. While changes from IPC to BNS and the Evidence Act to BSA affirm continuity, they have not brought revolutionary improvements.
What is truly needed is greater judicial awareness, reform of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and strict enforcement of existing laws. Courts must adopt a focus on victims, moving away from an overreliance on technical details and supporting the legislative intent behind anti-dowry laws. Without the judiciary recognizing its role in fighting this social issue, dowry deaths will continue to be an “unfinished battle,” undermining India's constitutional promise of dignity and equality for women.
TheTimesOfndia
pubmed.ncbi
xpertslegal.com
Indian Express
LiveLaw
