Rise in dowry deaths alarming, says SC

New Delhi, Aug 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court has voiced its concern over the alarming rise in dowry-related deaths while upholding the Patna High Court's jugdgement of convicting and sentencing a victims's husband and father-in-law for poisoning her to death.

The apex court while upholding the judgment reafffirming ten years' imprisonment to the convicts by the trial court noted, ''To our information in no other civilised country similar problem of this magnitude exists. This is indeed a slur on our great heritage, ancient culture and civilisation.'' The deceased, Sanju Kumari, was married to the appellant, Surya Kant Sharma, in 1989 and was poisioned to death on the day of 'Chhath' puja on November 17, 1993.

Her husband and father-in-law, Ram Badan Sharma, had offered her 'prasad' laced with poision.

Her mother-in-law, Saraswati Devi, was given benefit of doubt by the trial court and let off.

The convicts had demanded a colour TV, motor cycle and Rs 20,000 in cash as dowry.

The division Bench comprising Justice S B Sinha and Justice Dalveer Bhandari in their judgment dated August 21 dismissed the appeals of the convicts and said,''For eradication of social evil of dowry, effective steps can be taken by the society itself and social sanctions in the form of its prohibition and punishment are some steps in that direction. Perhaps, greater social awareness and more severe legislative measures are urgently required to curb dowry-related deaths.'' The apex court also expressed its dismay that amendments in law to give it more teeth to deal with such crimes following the recommendations of Law Commission of India twenty years ago have failed to deliver and dowry deaths continue to be the bane on Indian society.

The accused were also convicted under section 201 of IPC (Destruction of evidence) for disposing of the body without informing her family members. The victim's family was informed about the death only after three days.

''Once a serious crime is committed, detection is a difficult matter and still more difficult is successful prosecution of the offender. The criminal is a member of the family; other members of the family are either guilty associates or silent but conniving witnesses.In any case, the shackles of the family are so strong that truth may not come out of the chains. Perhaps, to meet a situation of this kind, the Legislature must be enacted under section 304-B of IPC and section 113-B of the Evidence Act,'' the court pointed out.

UNI AKS/SC KD MSJ RN1045