The Calcutta High Court has held that persistent pressure exerted by a husband on his wife to obtain and bring her share of ancestral property from her parental home can fall within the broader ambit of a “dowry demand” under Section 304B IPC. While upholding the husband’s conviction for dowry death, the Court reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and acquitted the parents-in-law for want of substantive evidence against them.BackgroundThe Calcutta High Court has partly allowed two criminal appeals arising out of a dowry death case, holding that although the prosecution successfully established the husband’s continuous pressure on the deceased to bring money from her parental property, it failed to produce substantive evidence connecting the parents-in-law with the cruelty or dowry demand.A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray upheld the conviction of husband Sajal Parui under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code while acquitting his father Harendra Chandra Parui and mother Rina Parui. The Court also modified the husband’s sentence, reducing it from life imprisonment to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.The case arose out of the death of Chayanika, who married Sajal Parui in April 2010. According to the prosecution, cash, gold ornaments and household articles were given at the time of marriage. After a few years of marriage and the birth of a daughter, the husband and his family allegedly began demanding additional money and subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty.The prosecution alleged that the deceased was repeatedly compelled to persuade her brother to sell their ancestral property and hand over her share of the sale proceeds. It was further claimed that portions of the ancestral property had in fact been sold on earlier occasions and the deceased had received her share.On 23.06.2014, the deceased’s brother received information that Chayanika and her minor daughter had been found hanging inside the matrimonial home. Two days later, an FIR was registered under Sections 498A, 302, 304B and 34 IPC against the husband and his parents. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 498A and 304B IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The Trial Court acquitted all the accused of the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC after accepting that Chayanika had died by suicide and that the minor child had been killed by her mother before she took her own life. However, it convicted all three accused under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. While the husband was sentenced to imprisonment for life, his parents were sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, separate appeals were preferred before the High Court.One of the principal arguments advanced by the appellants was that asking a wife to claim her lawful share in ancestral property could never amount to a demand for dowry. The High Court, however, found that the evidence on record presented a different picture.The Bench noted that the deceased’s brother had consistently deposed that portions of the ancestral property were sold at the deceased’s request and that she received half of the sale consideration. Importantly, this aspect was not specifically disputed during cross-examination.The Court observed that while a woman undoubtedly has a legal right to claim her share in ancestral property, the issue in the present case was not the existence of that legal entitlement but the circumstances in which the demand was being made.“It is true that a lady can demand her share in her ancestral property but when such demand appears to be a result of direction and pressure from her husband, we cannot say that such demand would not come under the broader term of ‘dowry demand’,” the Bench observed.The Court found that the evidence established continuous pressure exerted by the husband upon the deceased to obtain her share of the ancestral property from her parental family. Agreeing with the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence, the Bench observed that within a short span of time the deceased’s brother had repeatedly been asked to sell the family’s remaining ancestral land and hand over the deceased’s share of the sale proceeds.Rejecting the arguments that absence of independent witnesses weakened the prosecution case, the Court observed that such demands are ordinarily made within the privacy of the matrimonial home.“It is not expected that Sajal will make such a demand in the presence of any independent witness,” the Court remarked.The Bench further found support for the prosecution case in the suicide note recovered during investigation. Although the defence relied upon the note to argue that the deceased had exonerated her husband and in-laws, the High Court observed that the contents of the note also reflected the unhappy state of the marital relationship and disclosed the pressure under which the deceased was living.The Court noted that the suicide note referred to a passive threat that if arrangements for money were not made, the husband might contract a second marriage.“The suicide note has clearly indicated that there was a passive threat from the side of the appellants that if the arrangement of money was not done… Sajal Parui may marry another girl for the second time,” the Bench observed, adding that the material on record showed the deceased was subjected to sustained pressure to bring money from her parental home.Court Finds No Evidence Against Parents-In-LawWhile upholding the husband’s conviction, the High Court reached a different conclusion in respect of the parents-in-law.The Bench observed that although the FIR contained allegations against Harendra Chandra Parui and Rina Parui, those allegations were not supported by substantive evidence during trial.The Court noted that the deceased’s brother, who was the de facto complainant, “did not utter a single word against them” while deposing before the Trial Court. The remaining prosecution witnesses also failed to establish that the parents-in-law had actively participated in either demanding money or subjecting the deceased to cruelty.According to the Bench, the Trial Court’s findings against the parents-in-law could not be sustained in the absence of cogent evidence.“We do not find any substantive evidence on record… there is no clinching evidence against those appellants showing that they had actively participated in the commission of offence and took part in demanding the victim’s share in her ancestral property.”The Court, therefore, held that the conviction of the parents-in-law under Sections 498A and 304B IPC rested on insufficient evidence and they were entitled to the benefit of doubt.The husband also argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients necessary for invoking the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.The High Court rejected the argument and reiterated that once the prosecution proves the foundational facts constituting a dowry death under Section 304B IPC, the statutory presumption under Section 113B comes into operation.Quoting from Gurdip Singh, the Court observed:“Once all the ingredients are present, the presumption of innocence fades away.”The Bench held that the prosecution had successfully established continuous cruelty linked to the demand for money from the deceased’s parental property. Consequently, the Trial Court was justified in drawing the statutory presumption against the husband.The Court also distinguished Vipin Jaiswal v. State of Andhra Pradesh, relied upon by the defence. It observed that unlike the facts in that case, the present record contained sufficient evidence demonstrating persistent pressure upon the deceased to bring money from her parental family.Although the High Court upheld the husband’s conviction, it found merit in his challenge to the sentence.The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hari Om v. State of Haryana, where it was held that although Section 304B IPC prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years, life imprisonment is not to be awarded in every case.The Court observed:“…life imprisonment… should be awarded in ‘rare cases’ but not in every case.”Applying that principle, the Bench held that the present case did not fall within the category of exceptional cases warranting the maximum punishment. The Court observed that although the husband was guilty of subjecting the deceased to cruelty for dowry, cases involving suicide following dowry harassment are, unfortunately, not so uncommon as to automatically justify the extreme sentence of imprisonment for life.Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, the High Court reduced the husband’s sentence from life imprisonment to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, leaving the fine imposed by the Trial Court undisturbed.The appeals were, therefore, partly allowed and Harendra Chandra Parui and Rina Parui were acquitted of all charges after the Court found no substantive evidence connecting them with the alleged dowry demand or cruelty, and their bail bonds were directed to stand discharged.CRA (DB) 183 OF 2024Sajal Parui Vs. The State of West BengalFor the Appellants : Mr. Avishek Sinha, Adv. Ms. Madhusree Banerjee, Adv. For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P., Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, Adv. Ms. Nandini Chatterjee, Adv.Date of Decision: 02.07.2026(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
