Criminalization Of Dowry-Related Harassment, Abetment To Suicide, And Honor Killings

11 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

🔹 I. DOWRY-RELATED HARASSMENT

1. Legal Framework

Dowry-related offences are mainly covered under:

Section 498A, Indian Penal Code (IPC) – cruelty by husband or relatives of husband.

Section 304B, IPC – dowry death.

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – prohibits giving or taking of dowry.

Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act – presumption as to dowry death.

Essence:
If a woman dies within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances and was harassed or subjected to cruelty for dowry, it is treated as dowry death, and the husband or his relatives are presumed guilty unless proved otherwise.

🔹 II. ABETMENT TO SUICIDE

1. Legal Framework

Section 306, IPC – abetment to suicide.

Section 107, IPC – defines “abetment,” including instigation or intentional aiding of suicide.

When a married woman is driven to suicide due to cruelty or harassment by her husband or in-laws, they can be punished under Section 306 IPC along with Section 498A.

🔹 III. HONOR KILLINGS

1. Legal Framework

There is no specific section in IPC for honor killing, but offenders are punished under:

Section 302 IPC – murder,

Section 120B IPC – criminal conspiracy,

Section 34 IPC – common intention.

Supreme Court has directed strict punishment and accountability of local authorities to prevent such killings.

🧑‍⚖️ IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

1. Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207

Facts:

A woman died by burning within seven years of marriage. The husband and his family had continuously demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that continuous harassment for dowry amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

Since the death occurred within seven years and was unnatural, Section 304B (dowry death) was also applicable.

The Court clarified that the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act applies strongly in such cases.

Principle:

Once prosecution proves harassment related to dowry soon before death, the burden shifts to the accused to disprove their involvement.

2. Satbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2021) 6 SCC 1

Facts:

A woman died due to burn injuries within two years of marriage. Evidence showed consistent demands for dowry.

Held:

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that cruelty or harassment “soon before death” is a key element.

The Court emphasized that Section 304B must be interpreted in light of the object of dowry law—to curb the social evil.

Conviction under Section 304B was upheld, and a concurrent conviction under Section 498A was allowed.

Principle:

Courts must give a purposive interpretation to dowry death provisions to ensure effective deterrence.

3. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618

Facts:

The wife committed suicide after her husband made a remark suggesting she should “go and die.” The trial court convicted the husband under Section 306 IPC for abetment.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that every word uttered in anger cannot be treated as instigation.

There must be a clear mens rea (intention) and direct nexus between the accused’s act and the suicide.

The Court acquitted the husband due to lack of evidence of intentional abetment.

Principle:

For conviction under Section 306 IPC, intentional instigation or active participation must be proved; mere cruelty may not always suffice.

4. State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73

Facts:

A woman committed suicide allegedly due to harassment by her husband and in-laws. The trial court convicted them for abetment to suicide.

Held:

The Supreme Court cautioned that courts should not jump to conclusions merely because suicide occurred in a matrimonial home.

Evidence must show that the conduct of the accused was such as to drive the victim to suicide.

The conviction was reduced as the harassment was not shown to be of the degree that would compel suicide.

Principle:

There must be proximate cause between cruelty and suicide — not just general marital discord.

5. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192

Facts:

This case dealt with honor killings committed by Khap Panchayats or family members to prevent marriages violating caste or community norms.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that honor killings violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution (Right to Equality, Freedom, and Life).

Directed the State and police to take preventive, remedial, and punitive measures.

Declared that Khap Panchayats have no right to interfere with adult consensual marriages.

Principle:

Honor killings are barbaric murders—no honor in such acts; they must be treated as aggravated forms of murder under Section 302 IPC.

6. Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396

Facts:

A man killed his daughter because she was in a relationship against family wishes.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld life imprisonment, holding that killing in the name of family honor is murder under Section 302 IPC.

The Court condemned the mindset that treats women as property of family honor.

Principle:

Any killing for family or community “honor” is murder and deserves no leniency.

🔹 IV. SUMMARY TABLE

Offence	IPC Section	Key Case	Key Principle
Dowry Harassment	498A	Kans Raj v. State of Punjab	Continuous cruelty linked to dowry demand
Dowry Death	304B	Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana	Death “soon before” harassment → presumption of guilt
Abetment to Suicide	306	Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh	Must prove intentional instigation
Suicide Due to Harassment	306 + 498A	State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal	Need causal connection between cruelty and suicide
Honor Killing	302	Shakti Vahini v. UOI / Bhagwan Das v. NCT Delhi	No honor in murder — strict punishment required

🔹 CONCLUSION

Indian law has evolved to criminalize all forms of domestic cruelty and honor-based violence:

Dowry-related harassment and deaths attract stringent presumptions and punishments.

Abetment to suicide requires proof of intentional instigation but is taken seriously when linked to cruelty.

Honor killings are treated as aggravated murders, with strong constitutional condemnation.

These judgments collectively reinforce women’s right to dignity, safety, and equality, ensuring that societal evils like dowry and honor-based violence face strict legal deterrence.