‘Abettor Of The In-Laws’: Allahabad HC’s Strong Rebuke To Parents Who Ignored Daughter’s Dowry Harassment Pleas

Parents who repeatedly send their daughter back to her matrimonial home despite her pleas of dowry harassment and warning that she may be killed can become “abettor of the in laws” in such cases, the Allahabad High Court observed while expressing anguish over the conduct of the parents of a woman who was burnt to death within two years of her marriage.

Court upheld the convictions of the deceased's mother-in-law and sister-in-law for dowry death, while setting aside her husband’s conviction under Section 304-B IPC (corresponding to Section 80 of the BNS, i.e. dowry death) and retaining his convictions for cruelty and demanding dowry.

The bench of Justice Manish Mathur passed the order on August 25 while partly allowing an appeal filed by Ram Chandra, Hema and Meena against their 2004 conviction by a Sitapur sessions court. The three had been convicted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

What happened to the woman?

According to the prosecution, Ramdevi was married to Ram Chandra about two years before the incident. Her family alleged that although dowry had been given according to their means, her in-laws demanded a buffalo, television and cycle and harassed her when the demands were not met.

On June 11, 1999, Ramdevi suffered severe burn injuries and subsequently died. Her family alleged that her hands and feet had been tied and that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had set her on fire.

The police initially did not register an FIR. Her father approached the Superintendent of Police on September 8, 1999, but after no action followed, he moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC (corresponding to Section 175(3) of the BNSS). The Magistrate then directed registration of the case, following which the FIR was registered on September 27.

The high court noted that doctors had found Ramdevi suffering from third-degree burns over most of her body. Significantly, there were no burns on her palms.

Why did the high court believe the hands were tied?

Court said the absence of burns on the palms supported the prosecution's version that Ramdevi's hands had been tied when she was set on fire.

“It is but natural if any person is on fire to try to douse the fire and the first body part used for that purpose would naturally be the palms,” Court observed.

It said the absence of burn injuries on the palms therefore corroborated the allegation that her hands had been tied. Court also noted that the deceased's parents had specifically stated in their statements to police that her hands had been tied.

The high court further relied on Ramdevi's statement to her mother. The doctor who examined her had stated that although her vital signs were precarious, she was capable of understanding. The doctor had also informed the police twice about the need to record her dying declaration, but no police official arrived.

Court held that the prosecution could not be faulted for the police's failure to record the statement formally when the declaration was otherwise of “sterling quality”.

How did the court apply the dowry death presumption?

The high court reiterated that for Section 304-B IPC to apply, the prosecution must establish, among other things, that the woman's death was unnatural, occurred within seven years of marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry “soon before” her death.

Once those ingredients are established, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act requires the court to presume that the accused caused the dowry death, though the presumption can be rebutted.

Court rejected the defence argument that there could be no dowry demand because no dowry had been given at the time of marriage. It drew a distinction between demanding dowry and actually giving it, observing that the absence of payment was inconsequential where specific demands had been established.

Court also held that dowry demands could be made after marriage.

It found the evidence of Ramdevi's parents regarding continuing harassment particularly significant because they said she had repeatedly told them about the demands whenever she returned to her parental home. Court noted that this evidence had not been challenged in cross-examination.

Why was the husband's dowry-death conviction set aside?

The high court drew a distinction between Ram Chandra and the other two accused.

It found that neither the prosecution witnesses nor the dying declaration contained an allegation showing that Ram Chandra had participated in the act of setting Ramdevi on fire. In fact, the dying declaration recorded that after she caught fire, Ram Chandra tried to extinguish the flames by throwing a bucket of water over her.

The evidence also showed that he took her to the hospital and accompanied her father to the district hospital.

Court therefore held that the trial court's finding against Ram Chandra under Section 304-B was “unsustainable” and set it aside. His convictions under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were nevertheless maintained.

The convictions and sentences of Hema and Meena were upheld in their entirety.

What did the court say about the deceased's parents?

In a strong concluding observation, the high court expressed “anguish” over the conduct of Ramdevi's parents.

It said they had repeatedly sent their daughter back to her matrimonial home despite being informed of the harassment and even after she told them that she might be murdered over dowry.

Court observed that it was “unfortunately a prevalent practice in India” for daughters to be treated as a burden after marriage, with parents becoming unconcerned about their well-being.

The appeal was accordingly partly allowed, with Ram Chandra's Section 304-B conviction set aside but his other convictions retained, while Hema and Meena's convictions remained intact. Court directed all three to surrender before the trial court within three weeks to serve their sentences.

Case Title: Ram Chandra And 2 Ors. v. State of U.P.

Bench: Justice Manish Mathur

Order Date: August 25, 2026