The Allahabad High Court has observed that for attracting an offence of demand of dowry or offence of dowry death, it is sufficient to show that the victim woman and accused husband were residing as husband and wife at the relevant point in time. It does not matter, even if she was not in the ambit of a legally wedded wife, the court added.
With these observations, the court rejected the claim of the accused husband that since the victim woman was his live-in partner, the provision of dowry death would not apply in this case.
While dismissing the petition of the accused husband – Adarsh Yadav, Justice Raj Beer Singh upheld the decision of the sessions court of Prayagraj dated April 30, 2024, by which the application of the accused husband – Adarsh Yadav for the discharge in a dowry death case was rejected. The petition was filed under section 482 (inherent powers of high court) of the criminal procedure code.
Declining to accept the pleas of the petitioner, the court observed, “To attract provisions of section – 304-B (dowry death) and 498-A (harassment for dowry) of Indian Penal Code (IPC), it is sufficient to show that victim woman and accused husband were residing as husband and wife at the relevant point of time. In the instant case, for the sake of arguments even if it is assumed that the deceased does not fall within the ambit of legally wedded wife, there is ample evidence on record that applicant and deceased were residing together as husband and wife at the relevant point of time.”
The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order (order under challenge) is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.
According to him, the marriage of deceased has taken place with one Rohit Yadav and that there is no credible evidence that she has obtained divorce from said Rohit Yadav. In fact, later the deceased has started living with applicant in live-in relationship and since no marriage has taken place between deceased and applicant, hence no offence of dowry death (section 304B) is made out.
On the other hand, state counsel opposed the application and submitted that in the first information report, it was clearly mentioned that after the marriage of the deceased with Rohit Yadav, she was divorced by him and thereafter marriage of the deceased with the applicant was through court and there are the allegations that deceased was harassed by the applicant on account of dowry. The deceased has committed suicide at the premises of the applicant.
It was further submitted by the state counsel that whether the marriage between deceased and applicant was lawful or not, is a question of fact and that can only be examined during trial.
Dismissing the petition, the court in its decision dated September 20 said, “In view of aforesaid facts, the contention raised on behalf of the applicant the that provisions of section – 304-B IPC is not attracted has no force. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial court has considered all relevant facts of the matter and application filed by applicant for discharge was rejected by a reasoned order.”
