Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, held that the place where a distressed woman gets compelled to end her life had no relevance. “For purposive interpretation of the provision under Section 304B IPC, it is the existence and continuance of matrimony which has to be kept in mind and not the place(s) to which the deceased shifts herself before taking her life”, the court remarked. 

These observations were made in a bail application filed by the husband of the deceased. The husband was arrested on May 26, 2023. According to the prosecution, the charge sheet was filed against the husband, his parents, and his sister after the investigation, and six out of forty prosecution witnesses were examined.

The complaint in the matter was lodged by Suresh Kumar, father of the deceased, Raveena. He alleged that Raveena was married to the husband on February 22, 2023, and that she was informed by the husband the very next day that he had married her under family pressure. He further claimed that Raveena was harassed by her in-laws for dowry and was told that the Rs. 7 lakh provided by her parents was insufficient. Raveena allegedly confided in her father about this harassment, following which she returned to her parental home around mid-March. On April 27, 2023, she was found hanging in her room and was declared dead.

During the bail hearing, Advocate Mohit Sharma, for the husband, argued that Raveena committed suicide at her parental home and not at her matrimonial home, and hence, the charge under Section 304B IPC was not applicable. It was also submitted that there was no evidence of dowry harassment ‘soon before her death’, as required under Section 304B IPC. 

On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor Manjeet Arya, for the State, asserted that the deceased faced continuous harassment even after moving to her parental home. It was also pointed out that the husband had initiated judicial separation proceedings on April 19, 2023, and that a lengthy telephone conversation occurred between the husband and the deceased days before she died. 

The court considered the precedents cited by the defence but held that none of them supported the husband in the present case. The court emphasized that the location of the suicide was not decisive in determining whether the death constituted a dowry death. It reiterated that the phrase “soon before her death” must be interpreted in the context of continuity of harassment rather than an exact timeframe.

The court observed that, although the final trial was yet to determine the veracity of the claims, the facts as presented in the FIR and the charge sheet indicated that the deceased was harassed shortly after marriage and remained in communication with the husband until days before her death. The court held that these circumstances could not be ignored and that a strong prima facie case existed against the husband.

In conclusion, the court denied the bail application, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing trial.

For Petitioner: Advocate Mohit Sharma
For Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Manjeet Arya
Case Title: Vinay v State (2025: DHC: 2372)