<p>The Supreme Court has said in order to eradicate the evil practice of “dowry”, the word ought to be ascribed an expansive meaning so as to encompass any demand made on a woman, whether property or valuable security of any nature. </p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana, and Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli said compelling a woman to bring money for constructing a house would also come within the meaning of dowry demands.</p>.<p>The top court said a push in the right direction was required to accomplish the task of eradicating this evil of dowry, which has become deeply entrenched in our society.</p>.<p>"When dealing with cases under Section 304-B IPC, a provision legislated to act as a deterrent in the society and curb the heinous crime of dowry demands, the shift in the approach of the courts ought to be from strict to liberal, from constricted to dilated. Any rigid meaning would tend to bring to naught, the real object of the provision, the bench said. </p>.<p>The court allowed an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh government against the High Court's order which set aside the conviction of Jogendra, and his father Badri Prasad for forcing his wife to end her life due to persistent dowry demands.</p>.<p>The court, however, reduced their sentence from life imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment.</p>.<p>The bench said the High Court fell in an error in infering that since the deceased had joined her husband and father-in-law, and asked her mother or uncle to contribute money to construct a house, this cannot be treated as a “dowry demand". </p>.<p>"On the contrary, the evidence brought on record shows that the deceased was pressurised to make such a request for money to her mother and uncle. It was not a case of complicity but a case of sheer helplessness faced by the deceased in such adverse circumstances," the bench said.</p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said in order to eradicate the evil practice of “dowry”, the word ought to be ascribed an expansive meaning so as to encompass any demand made on a woman, whether property or valuable security of any nature. </p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana, and Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli said compelling a woman to bring money for constructing a house would also come within the meaning of dowry demands.</p>.<p>The top court said a push in the right direction was required to accomplish the task of eradicating this evil of dowry, which has become deeply entrenched in our society.</p>.<p>"When dealing with cases under Section 304-B IPC, a provision legislated to act as a deterrent in the society and curb the heinous crime of dowry demands, the shift in the approach of the courts ought to be from strict to liberal, from constricted to dilated. Any rigid meaning would tend to bring to naught, the real object of the provision, the bench said. </p>.<p>The court allowed an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh government against the High Court's order which set aside the conviction of Jogendra, and his father Badri Prasad for forcing his wife to end her life due to persistent dowry demands.</p>.<p>The court, however, reduced their sentence from life imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment.</p>.<p>The bench said the High Court fell in an error in infering that since the deceased had joined her husband and father-in-law, and asked her mother or uncle to contribute money to construct a house, this cannot be treated as a “dowry demand". </p>.<p>"On the contrary, the evidence brought on record shows that the deceased was pressurised to make such a request for money to her mother and uncle. It was not a case of complicity but a case of sheer helplessness faced by the deceased in such adverse circumstances," the bench said.</p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos</strong></p>
