In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that a dowry death case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be dismissed merely because the woman committed suicide at her parental home rather than her matrimonial home.
While dismissing the regular bail plea of an accused husband, Justice Girish Kathpalia clarified that the key factor in such cases is the existence and continuation of the matrimonial relationship, not the location where the woman ended her life.
“I am unable to convince myself that merely because the deceased committed suicide in her parental home and not in her matrimonial home, it is not a case of dowry death. The place where a tormented lady gets compelled to kill herself has no bearing. For purposive interpretation of the provision under Section 304B IPC, it is the existence and continuance of matrimony that has to be kept in mind and not the place(s) to which the deceased shifts herself before taking her life,” the Court observed.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The case involved an FIR registered against the accused-applicant under Sections 304B, 306, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. The deceased had married the accused, but troubling events reportedly began immediately after the wedding.
According to the complainant-father:
- The accused told the deceased just one day after the marriage that she was not his choice and the marriage was done under family pressure.
- The deceased was harassed for dowry by the accused and his family members.
- Due to emotional distress, she returned to her parental home.
- On the fateful day, her father found her hanging from a ventilator with a dupatta.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Represented by Advocate Mohit Sharma, the accused submitted:
- The deceased’s suicide took place at her parental home, not the matrimonial home.
- There was no evidence of dowry harassment “soon before her death”.
COURT’S REASONING
The Court emphasized the interpretation of the phrase “soon before her death” in the context of Section 304B IPC, noting that it should reflect the continuity of harassment within the matrimonial relationship.
“One has to remember that the legislature in its wisdom used the phrase in question as ‘soon before’ and not ‘immediately before’. What is contemplated by Section 304B IPC is ‘soon before death’ and not ‘immediately before death’,” the Court stated.
The Bench also took note of other material evidence:
- There were specific allegations of dowry demands in the FIR.
- The accused and his family reportedly said that the ₹7,00,000 brought by the deceased was “only enough to buy a small car.”
- The deceased, though living at her parental home, remained in frequent telephonic contact with the accused.
- The final phone call between the deceased and the accused lasted 584 seconds, just before her suicide.
FINAL ORDER
In view of these circumstances, the Court concluded that there were sufficient grounds to invoke Section 304B IPC and denied the accused’s bail application.
“Having found no circumstance leading to the innocence of the accused at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail,” the Court ruled.
CASE INFORMATION
Case Title: Vinay v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2372
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Applicant’s Counsel: Advocate Mohit Sharma
Respondents: APP Manjeet Arya, Inspector Davender Singh, Advocate Amrita Sharma
