Calcutta HC Cuts Husband's Life Term to 10 Years in Dowry Death Case, Acquits Parents for Want of Evidence

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upheld the husband's conviction under Section 304B IPC but reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years, while acquitting his parents for absence of substantive evidence against them.

A Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, on 2 July 2026 partly allowed an appeal by Sajal Parui, convicted under Section 304B/34 and Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the dowry death of his wife Chayanika. The bench reduced his sentence from rigorous imprisonment for life to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, holding that life terms under Section 304B are reserved for rare cases. In a separate appeal, the bench allowed the appeal of his parents, Harendra Chandra Parui and Rina Parui, finding that no substantive evidence placed their role in either the dowry demand or the cruelty, and acquitting them of all charges. The judgment was authored by Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, with Justice Arijit Banerjee concurring.

The Deaths and the Trial Court's Findings

Sajal Parui married Chayanika on 24 April 2010. After marriage the couple lived together at the matrimonial home and had a daughter. The prosecution's case was that Sajal and his family members began demanding money and subjected Chayanika to physical and mental torture. The victim was repeatedly asked to have her brother sell ancestral property belonging to her father's family and hand over her share of the proceeds. Evidence on record showed that portions of that ancestral property were indeed sold on earlier occasions and the sale proceeds were shared between Chayanika and her brother.

On 23 June 2014, Chayanika's elder brother received a telephone call about an incident at the matrimonial home. He went there and found Chayanika and her minor daughter hanging from the ceiling, both dead. Uluberia Police Station Case No. 479 of 2014 was registered on 25 June 2014 under Sections 498A, 302, 304B and 34 of the IPC against Sajal and his parents. Sajal was arrested on 26 June 2014 and his parents on 28 June 2014. A charge sheet was submitted under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Uluberia, in Sessions Trial No. 64U of 2015, acquitted all three accused under Section 302 IPC, accepting the post-mortem doctor's finding of ante-mortem hanging with no evidence of homicidal death. However, the trial court convicted Sajal, his father Harendra Chandra Parui and his mother Rina Parui under Sections 498A/34 and 304B/34 IPC. Sajal was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 304B/34 IPC; the parents were sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fines. Both sets of convictions were challenged before the High Court.

Appellants' Arguments Before the High Court

Mr. Avishek Sinha, appearing for all three appellants, pressed several challenges to the trial court's findings. He argued that the trial court reached its conclusions on assumptions and conjectures, ignoring material inconsistencies in the prosecution case. The two-day delay in registering the FIR was highlighted, as was the complainant's own admission during cross-examination that he had consulted lawyers and law clerks before lodging the complaint.

On the core dowry question, the appellants contended that what was shown in evidence was Chayanika seeking her lawful share of her father's ancestral property — a claim a woman is legally entitled to make — and not a demand for dowry attributable to Sajal or his family. Neighbours who lived near the matrimonial home did not support the allegation of cruelty; some prosecution witnesses were declared hostile. The inquest witnesses, including close relatives, made no mention of dowry torture or foul play at the time the inquest report was prepared.

The appellants also relied heavily on the suicide note recovered from the scene. A handwriting expert had opined that the note's handwriting matched Chayanika's admitted handwriting, and the note itself allegedly exonerated the appellant and his family. The trial court was faulted for not giving this scientific evidence its due weight.

Counsel cited Hari Om v. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 10 SCC 577, Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2013) 10 SCC 395, and Vipin Jaiswal (A-1) v. State of AP reported in (2013) 3 SCC 684 in support of the challenge both to the conviction and to the severity of the sentence.

The learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Debasish Roy, countered that dowry demands can take varied forms and that the continuous pressure exerted on Chayanika to extract money from her brother's sale of ancestral property fell squarely within the definition of dowry demand. He submitted that the trial judge had duly considered all the points before convicting the appellants and relied on Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Hira Lal v. State (Government of NCT), Delhi reported in AIR 2003 SC 2865, The State of MP v. Jogendra reported in (2022) 5 SCC 401, and other precedents in support of the conviction.

How the Bench Reasoned on Sajal Parui's Conviction

The Division Bench declined to disturb the trial court's finding that Chayanika's death was suicidal and that the death of the minor child Shrestha was homicidal at the instance of her mother. It found no basis to interfere with the acquittal under Section 302 IPC.

On the delay in filing the FIR, the bench took a straightforward view. The sudden loss of a sister and her baby child could leave close relatives stunned and indecisive. Taking legal advice in that situation was, the bench held, a reasoned step on the complainant's part. The two-day gap was not treated as a reason to doubt the prosecution.

The more complex question was whether the pressure to realise ancestral property proceeds amounted to a dowry demand. PW-1, Chayanika's elder brother and the de facto complainant, deposed that on the victim's own request he had sold ancestral property and handed over half the sale proceeds to her, and that Sajal had himself signed some of those documents. Crucially, during cross-examination the appellants did not specifically deny that the sales and handovers had taken place. The bench noted that a woman is entitled to her share of ancestral property, but that entitlement changes character when the evidence establishes that the demand was being driven by her husband's pressure. The bench accepted the trial court's finding that Sajal continuously pressured Chayanika to secure money from her brother, and that it was unrealistic to expect such demands to be made in front of independent witnesses.

The suicide note itself, while relied upon by the defence to exonerate the family, was read by the bench as corroborating the prosecution's case. The note disclosed a passive but operative threat: if Chayanika did not arrange the money, Sajal would take a second wife. The bench found that this threat, combined with the consistent deposition of close relatives about ongoing financial demands, was sufficient to show serious discord in the marriage rooted in money demands, and that Chayanika's decision to end her own life and that of her child was connected to that pressure. The bench found the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act properly drawn against Sajal.

Acquittal of the Parents

The position of Harendra Chandra Parui and Rina Parui was treated differently. Though PW-1 had named them in the original FIR, by the time he gave evidence before the court he did not utter a single word against either of them. The bench surveyed the depositions of other witnesses and found no clinching evidence that either parent had actively participated in demanding money from Chayanika or had taken any part in subjecting her to the cruelty alleged. The trial court's observations against them did not, in the bench's assessment, rest on any substantive piece of evidence. The bench accordingly held that their conviction under Sections 498A/34 and 304B/34 could not stand.

Reduction of Sentence Under Section 304B

Even while affirming Sajal's conviction, the bench reduced the sentence. Drawing on Hari Om v. State of Haryana, the bench extracted the principle that life imprisonment under Section 304B IPC is not mandatory in every case. The court in that case had held that the sentencing discretion runs between seven years and life imprisonment depending on the facts, and that the extreme penalty of life imprisonment should be awarded only in rare cases. The bench applied that principle here, observing that the commission of suicide under the pressure of dowry demands, while tragic, is “not very rare or uncommon one.” On that basis, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life was reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The fine component of the sentence was left unchanged.

Order

CRA (DB) 183 of 2024, filed by Sajal Parui, was allowed partly. His sentence under Section 304B/34 IPC was modified from rigorous imprisonment for life to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. All other aspects of his conviction and the fine were maintained.

CRA 538 of 2017, filed by Harendra Chandra Parui and Rina Parui (the latter noted as since deceased), was allowed in full. Both appellants were acquitted of all charges levelled against them. Their bail bonds were directed to be discharged.

All connected applications in both appeals were disposed of. The bench directed that urgent photostat certified copies of the judgment be supplied to the parties on compliance with the necessary formalities.