SC flags dowry scourge, cancels bail

Highlighting the menace of dowry that reduces the sacred bond of marriage to a mere commercial transaction, the Supreme Court on Friday cancelled the bail of a man who allegedly poisoned his wife for dowry in June 2023 — barely four months after their marriage.

“Dowry death is not merely an offence against an individual but a crime against society at large… The alarming rise in such cases necessitates strict judicial scrutiny. Permitting the accused to remain at large in the face of such material would erode the deterrent object of Sections 304B and 498A, IPC,” a Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan said.

“This court cannot lose sight of the fact that marriage, in its true essence, is a sacred and noble institution founded on mutual trust, companionship, and respect. However, in recent times, this pious bond has regrettably been reduced to a mere commercial transaction. The evil of dowry, though often sought to be camouflaged as gifts or voluntary offerings, has in reality become a means to display social status and to satiate material greed,” said the Bench.

Describing the Allahabad High Court’s bail order as “perverse and unsustainable” for ignoring the gravity of the offence, corroborated dying declarations, and the statutory presumption of dowry death, the Bench annulled the bail granted to accused Yogendra Pal Singh of Fatehpur district in Uttar Pradesh and directed him to surrender forthwith.

Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Mahadevan said: “The phenomenon of dowry deaths represents one of the most abhorrent manifestations of this social malaise, where the life of a young woman is extinguished within her matrimonial home — not for any fault of her own, but solely to satisfy the insatiable greed of others. Such heinous offences strike at the very root of human dignity and violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and life with dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They corrode the moral fibre of the community, normalise violence against women, and erode the foundations of a civilised society.”

The top court noted “that judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in the face of such atrocities would only embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. A firm and deterrent judicial response is, therefore, imperative — not only to uphold the majesty of law and do justice in the present case, but also to send an unequivocal message that neither law nor society will countenance barbarities born out of the evil of dowry”.