Traditional practice Varopachara does not fall under dowry category, says HC

S Shyam Prasad

Bengaluru: ‘Varopachara’ or gifts as pleasantries given as per a custom prevailing in their caste by the bride’s family to the bridegroom cannot be considered as a demand or payment of dowry, the HC has held.

Upholding the acquittal of one Chidananda V Hiremath, the HC said, “In the light of the complainant himself in his complaint stating that articles / pleasantries given were as per a custom prevailing in their caste, it cannot be held that there was any demand or payment of dowry from the complainant side to the accused in connection with the marriage.”

Chidananda got married to one Jayashri on December 12, 2014. Allegedly a sum of Rs 51,000, one tola of gold necklace and money for clothes were given to the bride and bridegroom by the former’s family at the wedding. Despite this, Caidananda, his mother, sister and brother-in-law harassed Jayshri for dowry.

On April 17, 2015, Jayashri met an unnatural death by sustaining a stab injury in her abdomen. Hiremath and his three family members were charged by the police under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sections 498A, 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Acquitted by trial court On February 25, 2017, the Trial Court acquitted the accused of offences charged against them. The State challenged this in the High Court. The appeal was heard by the division bench of Justice HB Prabhakara Sastry and Justice CM Joshi.

With regards to charges under the DP Act, the HC said, “The complainant (victim’s father) in his complaint has stated that the marriage of the deceased with accused No 1 was performed after giving the ‘varopachara’ (gifts as pleasantries) as per customs prevailing in their caste.

Nowhere in his complaint has the complainant even whispered that the alleged valuables were given as dowry or that there was any demand from the accused for it.” The HC, therefore, upheld the acquittal on the charges under the DP Act. The prosecution also failed to prove the allegation of harassment under Section 498A of the IPC.

The HC noted: “The prosecution has not made any effort in eliciting any details from these witnesses except stimulating the words from them as ‘irritation’ and ‘trouble’ respectively.” As for the death, the prosecution alleged that Jayashri was murdered. The accused claimed that it was suicide by Jayashri as she was upset that her parents had sent her back to the matrimonial house.

The HC noted that the doctor who conducted the autopsy had stated that it could have been a self-injury that caused the death and there was no conclusive proof that another person caused the stab injury on the victim’s stomach.

The HC said, “It can be held that the prosecution could not prove that the death of the deceased Smt Jayashri was culpable homicide amounting to murder and that it was committed by accused No.1 (Chidananda)’.