Dowry Related Prosecutions Under Dowry Prohibition Act
I. Introduction
Dowry is a cultural practice in which the bride’s family provides money, gifts, or property to the groom or his family at the time of marriage. While socially prevalent, dowry is illegal in Bangladesh under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980.
Objectives of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980
Prevent demand or acceptance of dowry.
Protect women from harassment, cruelty, and domestic violence linked to dowry.
Punish offenders, including grooms, their families, or intermediaries who demand or receive dowry.
Key Provisions
Section 3: Prohibition on giving, taking, or abetting dowry.
Section 4: Penalty for demanding or taking dowry: imprisonment up to 5 years and/or fine.
Section 5: Punishment for abetment and attempt to give or take dowry.
Section 6: Court can take cognizance of offences suo motu or on complaint.
II. Legal Procedure in Dowry Cases
Complaint: Victim or relative files a complaint under the Act.
Investigation: Police investigate under CrPC and collect evidence.
Charge: Offender is charged under Sections 3, 4, or 5 of the Act.
Trial: Evidence includes victim testimony, family statements, receipts of dowry, and witnesses.
Judgment: Court decides based on proof of demand, acceptance, or harassment related to dowry.
III. Challenges in Prosecution
Underreporting: Fear of family backlash or social stigma.
Evidence issues: Dowry is often demanded verbally or in non-documented forms.
Witness reluctance: Family members may refuse to testify.
Delay in prosecution: Social pressure often leads to amicable settlements, weakening the case.
IV. Landmark Cases
Case 1: State v. Farzana Begum (1995)
Facts:
Farzana Begum was harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws for failing to bring a demanded dowry.
Issue:
Whether harassment linked to dowry demands falls under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Judgment:
Court held that physical and mental harassment to obtain dowry constitutes an offence under Sections 3 and 4.
Conviction of husband and in-laws, with imprisonment and fine.
Principle:
Dowry-related harassment, even without formal transaction, is punishable.
Case 2: Rehana Akter v. State (2002)
Facts:
Rehana Akter’s husband demanded additional property after marriage. Threats and abuse continued when she refused.
Issue:
Whether post-marriage dowry demands are covered under the Act.
Judgment:
Court clarified that dowry demands can be pre- or post-marriage.
Husband and relatives were convicted under Section 4.
Principle:
Law covers dowry demands at any stage, not just at marriage.
Case 3: State v. Md. Kamal Hossain (2008)
Facts:
Md. Kamal Hossain allegedly took cash and gifts from the bride’s family and used threats of violence to obtain more.
Issue:
Whether coercion to take dowry constitutes a criminal offence.
Judgment:
Court held that threats, coercion, or force to obtain dowry are punishable.
Conviction upheld; court emphasized that taking dowry voluntarily under threat is illegal.
Principle:
Coercive or forceful acquisition of dowry is explicitly punishable under Section 4.
Case 4: Shumi Akhter v. State (2014)
Facts:
Shumi Akhter was tortured by her in-laws for refusing to meet dowry demands. She filed a case under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Issue:
Whether family members besides the husband can be held liable.
Judgment:
Court held that abetment by relatives or intermediaries is punishable under Section 5.
Conviction extended to husband’s parents and siblings.
Principle:
Law recognizes that abetment by family members is a criminal offence.
Case 5: State v. Anowar Hossain (2018)
Facts:
Anowar Hossain demanded cash and gold from the bride’s family, and the victim’s complaint was delayed.
Issue:
Whether delayed complaints affect prosecution under the Act.
Judgment:
Court ruled that delay does not bar prosecution, though credibility of witnesses is considered.
Conviction was secured based on corroborated evidence like receipts and witness testimony.
Principle:
Delay in reporting does not invalidate dowry prosecution, but evidence must be strong.
V. Summary Table: Dowry Prosecution Cases
| Case | Key Issue | Judgment / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Farzana Begum (1995) | Harassment for dowry | Physical/mental harassment punishable |
| Rehana Akter v. State (2002) | Post-marriage dowry demands | Law applies before/after marriage |
| State v. Md. Kamal Hossain (2008) | Coercion to obtain dowry | Threats/coercion punishable under Section 4 |
| Shumi Akhter v. State (2014) | Role of relatives in dowry demand | Abetment by family members punishable (Section 5) |
| State v. Anowar Hossain (2018) | Delayed complaint | Delay does not bar prosecution if evidence is strong |
VI. Conclusion
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 serves as a legal safeguard for women in Bangladesh against dowry-related exploitation:
Covers all stages of marriage—pre- and post-marriage demands.
Punishes all participants, including grooms, relatives, and intermediaries.
Recognizes harassment, coercion, and abetment as criminal acts.
Delayed complaints are acceptable, provided evidence is reliable.
Key Takeaway:
Effective enforcement requires strong evidence, witness protection, and public awareness to combat the deeply entrenched social practice of dowry.
RELATED Blog
comments