Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
State Of U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Ajmal Beg Etc. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 132-133 Of 2017
Decided On : 15-12-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 [Section 419 of BNSS] – Cruelty and dowry death – Appeal against acquittal by High Court – Omissions or inconsistencies in testimonies of witnesses – Presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 came into effect as soon as it stood proved that deceased had been subjected to cruelty soon before her death, and went unrebutted by defence, since no evidence was led by them – When harassment for dowry is proved and so is the fact that such harassment was made soon before her death, then a mere statement of one of witnesses that she was apparently happy, would not save Respondents from guilt – While reversing findings of facts returned by Trial Court, High Court has not assigned any reasons explicitly holding such findings to be erroneous/perverse or illegal – High Court has erred in setting aside judgment of conviction returned by Trial Court – Judgment of Trial Court, insofar as it relates to conviction of both accused, restored – Directions issued regarding measures to be adopted to address vice of dowry offences. (Paras 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 26)
(B) Criminal Law – Sentence – While weighing and assessing sentencing particularly in case of convicts of advanced age such as in praesenti causa, Court must take into consideration humanitarian considerations which dictate that imposing imprisonment may be inhumane, given severe physical frailty, likely medical dependency, and reduced capacity to endure hardships of custody, thereby implicating and compromising dignity protected under law. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals are at the instance of the State of Uttar Pradesh, laying challenge to a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. Nos. 5109 of 2003 and 5110 of 2003, entering a finding of acquittal of respondents herein, setting aside judgment and order dated 7th October 2003, of conviction returned by Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial 573 and 574 of 2001 arising out of First Information Report registered under Sections 498-A and 304-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Findings of Court:
Let a copy of this judgment be circulated electronically to Registrar General of High Courts who are requested to place the same before Chief Justices and solicit directions in accordance with the above, and also, to the Chief Secretaries of all States for necessary follow up action.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
Parties and Proceedings: State of U.P. (Appellant) v. Ajmal Beg & Jamila Beg (Respondents). Criminal Appeals Nos. 132-133 of 2017, arising from High Court acquittal under CrPC S.374, reversing Trial Court conviction in Sessions Trial 573/574 of 2001 (FIR No. 94/2001, PS Kiratpur, under IPC Ss.498A, 304B r/w DPA Ss.3/4). (!) (!)
Facts: Deceased (Nasrin) married Ajmal Beg (R-1) over a year before incident. Respondents (Ajmal & mother Jamila) repeatedly demanded colour TV, motorcycle, Rs.15,000/- from deceased & her father (PW1). Demand reiterated by Ajmal on 04.06.2001. On 05.06.2001, Respondents & others allegedly assaulted deceased, poured kerosene, set her ablaze. PW2 (maternal uncle) & Fahmid reached after cries for help, saw accused fleeing; deceased died of 100% burns (post-mortem PW4). FIR lodged by PW1. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Trial Court Findings: Convicted Ajmal & Jamila u/s 304B IPC (life + fine), 498A IPC (3 yrs + fine), 3/4 DPA (2 yrs + fine). Acquitted others (married daughters, Aslam). Relied on PW1, PW2, PW6 testimonies re: repeated dowry demands (10-12 visits by deceased), demand day prior, continuous harassment/threats; rejected suicide (no rescue attempt, extensive burns/quilt/roof). (!) (!) (!)
High Court (Impugned): Acquitted Ajmal & Jamila. Doubted PW2 (confused, no direct knowledge, inconsistencies re: informing PW1/Fahmid presence, no S.161 stmt); PW6 (no S.161 stmt, said deceased "happy"); PW1/PW6 not eyewitnesses. Held demands improbable (no pre-marriage dowry per PW6, accused poor, couldn't maintain items); marriage "dowryless"; parents frustrated re: poor match. (!) (!) (!)
Evidence Appreciation: Prosecution proved dowry demands (TV, motorcycle, Rs.15,000/-) consistently by PW1, PW2, PW6; reiterated day before death; continuous cruelty/harassment/threats to life; death within 7 yrs marriage by burns (not normal circumstances). Inconsistencies/omissions (e.g., FIR details, Fahmid presence, "happy" remark by PW6, pre-marriage dowry variance) minor, not fatal after sifting (not material to substratum); no defence evidence. PW2 reliable (saw fleeing accused post-act, not eyewitness). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Legal Principles Applied: - Dowry Death (IPC S.304B): Essentials satisfied (burns death <7 yrs marriage; cruelty/harassment "soon before" re: dowry - proximate nexus via day-prior demand). (!) (!) (!) - Presumption (Evidence Act S.113B): Triggered on proof of cruelty soon before death; mandatory, unrebutted (no defence evidence). (!) (!) - Cruelty (IPC S.498A): Harassment for dowry demand constitutes; threats to life proved. (!) (!) - DPA Ss.3/4: Demand post-marriage valid (dowry includes post-marriage demands linked to marriage); poverty irrelevant. (!) (!) (!)
High Court Errors: Reversal of Trial Court facts without holding perverse/illegal; misread "happy" remark (contextual - persuaded despite assault); fallacious logic (no pre-marriage demand bars post; poor accused can't demand). (!) (!)
Result: Appeals allowed; Trial Court conviction restored for both Respondents. Ajmal to surrender within 4 weeks for life term. Jamila (94 yrs): Conviction restored but no incarceration (humanitarian grounds - frailty, dignity). (!) (!)
Compliance: Copy to HC RGs/CJ/States; affidavits in 4 wks. (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal based on dowry-related offenses. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dowry as a social evil and its legal implications. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. facts of the case involving dowry demands. (Para 10) |
| 4. summary of trial court findings and high court's observations. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court's analysis of evidence and legal principles. (Para 14 , 15 , 20 , 21 , 23) |
| 6. final conclusions and directives for addressing dowry issues. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
For convenience of reference, this judgment is divided into the following parts:
INDEX
| THE APPEALS |
| DOWRY: A CROSS-CULTURAL EVIL |
| FACTS OF THE CASE |
| THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT |
| THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT : |
| ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION |
| CONCLUSION |
THE APPEALS
1. These appeals are at the instance of the State of Uttar Pradesh, laying challenge to a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal under Section 3 74 Cr.PC. Nos. 5109 of 2003 and 5110 of 2003, entering a finding of acquittal of the respondents herein, setting aside the judgment and order dated 7th October 2003, of conviction returned by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’] in Sessions Trial 573 and 574 of 2001 arising out of the First Information Report2[Hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR’] bearing No. 94/2001 registered at P.S Kiratpur, under Sections 4 98-A and 304-B, INDIAN PENAL CODE , 18603[Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19614[Hereinafter referred to as ‘ DPA , 1961’].
2. In this case, a young girl, barely of twenty, when she was sent away from the world of the living by way of a most heinous and painful death, met this unfortunate end simply because her parents did not have the material means and resources to satisfy the wants or the greed of her family by matrimony. A coloured television, a motorcycle and Rs. 15,000/- is all she was apparently worth of.
DOWRY: A CROSS-CULTURAL EVIL
3. Evil, unless eradicated, can never be contained. What originally began as a voluntary gift-giving practice to the daughter upon marriage, for her own use and financial independence, with time, morphed into an institutionalized practice - becoming an essential aspect of hypergamy5[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypergamy ]. This practice of marrying ‘higher up’ traces its origins to caste and kinship along with, to use a colloquial term, the ‘baggage of the samaj’ that comes with it. Since lineage is traced through the patriarchal line, the desire to marry daughters into equal or higher-status families ensured that their offspring retained or enhanced the family’s standing. Hypergamy thus became both a social strategy and a religiously sanctioned norm. Among upper castes, this evolved into rigid practices where daughters were “married up” to families of higher ritual or political rank, often necessitating large dowries as inducements. Over time, hypergamy was not just about varna but also about wealth, landholding, and political influence. Medieval royal families practiced hypergamy to forge alliances, and landed elites followed suit to consolidate power. By the early modern and colonial periods, hypergamy had become a widespread cultural pattern across many Hindu communities, entrenching the link between dowry and upward mobility. Today, even though outlawed, it continues, having divorced itself entirely from the well-being of the female (its original intent) to what is now being referred to as the ‘groom price theory’- i.e., the amount of dowry being determined by the particulars of the groom, such as social and educational background, earning capacity etc. What all of this translates to, is a systemic bias against women - pervasive across all sections of society - undervaluing them grossly. The amount of dowry the woman brings into the marital home directly corresponds to the value of the groom, which the woma
(1) Cruelty and dowry death – Presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act, 1872 comes into effect as soon as it stood proved that deceased had been subjected to cruelty soon before her death, and....
The judgment emphasizes the urgency for the society and the legal system to comprehensively address the issues of dowry deaths and combat patriarchy, sexism, and misogyny.
The court affirmed that dowry death and cruelty must be established with evidence of harassment soon before death, shifting the burden to the accused under Section 113-B Evidence Act.
The court ruled that to establish dowry death under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must show cruelty for dowry was inflicted soon before the victim's death, with a clear link between the two.
The court affirmed that demand for dowry and harassment must be proven as significant factors in determining the conviction for dowry death under IPC Section 304-B.
Point of Law : For offence Under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, punishment is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Conviction upheld - Dowry death - there was persistent demand of dowry made by accused from the victim who was used to subjected to cruelty and harassment for such demand and ultimately she had ended....
The prosecution must prove dowry demands and cruelty beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC; mere allegations are insufficient.
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death to sustain a conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
