Husband's extramarital affair not ground to assume dowry death under Section 304B IPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that a husband’s extramarital affair or betting habits cannot be grounds to implicate him under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes dowry deaths of wife [Parul versus NCT Of Delhi]. .The Court made the observation while granting bail to a man whose wife had died by suicide in August 2022 within two years of their marriage. "Insofar as the extra marital affair of the petitioner or the petitioner being into betting, is concerned, that cannot be a ground for implicating the petitioner under Section 304B IPC," the Court said..Justice Vikas Mahajan also noted that for invoking Section 304B of IPC, not only should there be harassment soon before the woman's death, but such harassment of the woman must be related to a demand for dowry. “The expression “soon before death” is a relative expression. Time lag may differ from case to case. All that is necessary that the demand of dowry should not be stale but should be a continuing cause for the death of married woman under Section 304B IPC,” the Court added..By way of background, the bail applicant in this case had allegedly misrepresented that he was a law graduate and practicing as a lawyer when he got married to the deceased woman. The wife later came to know about his alleged extramarital affair and his betting habits as well. Due to the strained relationship, she filed various cases against him including a divorce petition.The Court was told that the couple had been living separately since April 19, 2021, and that the woman died by suicide on August 7, 2022.After her death, the deceased woman's father filed a criminal complaint against the accused alleging that it was a case of dowry death.In his statement to the police, the father alleged that the accused had met the deceased woman a day before her death and threatened her leading to her suicide.The Court, however, noted that the woman's father did not allege that any demand of dowry was made by the accused when he allegedly met the woman the day before her suicide..The Court observed that the woman had earlier made a complaint alleging cruelty under Section 498A IPC in 2021, which also included allegations of dowry demand having been made. However, the Court noted that this allegation related to a time before April 19, 2021, which was when the woman left her matrimonial home. The State also conceded that there was nothing on record to show that demand for dowry was made by the accused after the victim had left her matrimonial home.The Court proceeded to allow release of the accused on bail after factoring in this aspect as well, namely that there was little to indicate that the woman was subjected to dowry-related harassment "soon before" her death.Notably, the Court was also told that the woman suffered from anxiety and depression.“It prima facie appears that the deceased was under treatment for anxiety and depression and the demand of dowry was not stated to be a stressor or trigger for her said medical issues, as shared by her with the treating doctor," the Court observed..The Court therefore opined that the accused was entitled to the presumption of innocence at the present stage of the case.Since the criminal trial may be protracted, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the accused behind bars, the Court said while allowing the plea..Senior Advocate JP Sengh and Advocate Surender Singh represented the accused.Additional Public Prosecutor Aashneet Singh appeared for the State.Advocates Amit Gupta, HS Mahapatra, Roshni Singh and Shiv Verma represented the complainant..[Read Order]