Dowry demand complaints are often not filed for the survival of marriage: Calcutta High Court

First information reports (FIRs) are often not lodged in cases of dowry demands or dowry harassment since there is always an effort on the part of the affected parties and their families to ensure survival of the marriage, the Calcutta High Court recently observed [Krishna Tewari v The State of West Bengal]. .However, that in itself would not render such allegations of dowry demand baseless, a Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Apurba Sinha Ray stated.The Court made the observation while upholding the murder and cruelty conviction of a man who punched his wife just three days after she gave birth to their child.The assault led to the death of the woman, after which the convict, Krishna Tewari, tried to cremate the body. The Court said Tewari did not just kill his wife but denied the newborn child “the care, compassion and guidance of his mother throughout his life”. The Court further said that even though no complaint of demand for dowry was lodged, it did not mean the claims were baseless.“It is true that there was no document showing that any complaint was lodged over such demand of dowry from the side of the victim or from her relatives but that does not mean that the claim of the said relatives over these issues are baseless. In our socio-economic condition, it is often found that the demand of dowry, although made from the groom's side, no complaint is lodged only to make an effort for survival of the relationship of husband and wife,” the judgment stated..The order was passed on a plea by Tiwari challenging the trial court order of 2009 convicting him under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC and for destroying the evidence in the case. He alleged that there were discrepancies in the prosecution’s case and his wife died after falling from the bed. .The Bench rejected Tewari’s case and said it had been proven that he was in the house during the death of his wife and, therefore, he must explain how his wife died with injury marks on her body. Ultimately, the Court upheld the conviction for murder and cruelty. However, it modified the order on conviction for destruction of evidence since Tewari had failed to burn the body. Instead, he was held guilty of attempting to destroy the evidence. .Advocates Subir Banerjee, Sandip Bandyopadhyay and R Basu Roy appeared for the convict Krishna Tewari. State was represented through Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Madhusudan Sur and advocate Manoranjan Mahata. .[Read Judgment]