The courtroom was unusually quiet when the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in a two-decade-old dowry death case from Uttar Pradesh. Reading out a detailed judgment, the Bench made it clear that this was not just about one family, but about how courts must deal with crimes rooted in everyday social practices. The State of Uttar Pradesh had challenged the Allahabad High Court’s decision that had acquitted a husband and his elderly mother in a young woman’s death. The Supreme Court disagreed, firmly.
Background
The case dates back to June 2001. Nasrin, barely twenty and married for just over a year, died after suffering extensive burn injuries at her matrimonial home in Bijnor district. Her father told the police that her husband Ajmal Beg and his family had repeatedly demanded a motorcycle, a colour television, and ₹15,000 in cash. A day before her death, the demand was allegedly repeated. When the family could not pay, Nasrin was harassed, threatened, and ultimately set on fire.
The trial court believed the prosecution witnesses and convicted Ajmal and his mother Jamila for dowry death and cruelty. However, in 2003, the Allahabad High Court overturned the conviction, raising doubts about witness credibility and even questioning whether a “poor family” would make such demands.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court took a very different view. Reassessing the evidence, the Bench noted that all key witnesses were consistent about the dowry demands and the harassment. “The demand for a motorcycle, a colour TV and ₹15,000 has been established beyond reasonable doubt,” the Court observed, adding that the demand was repeated just a day before the woman’s death.
The judges were particularly critical of the High Court’s reasoning. They rejected the idea that poverty makes dowry demands improbable. As the Bench put it, such an assumption “does not appeal to reason.” The Court also clarified that minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not demolish an otherwise strong prosecution case, especially in crimes that happen within the four walls of a home.
Explaining the law in simple terms, the Court said that if a woman dies unnaturally within seven years of marriage and there is proof of dowry-related cruelty “soon before her death,” the law presumes it to be a dowry death unless the accused proves otherwise.
Decision
Allowing the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal and restored the trial court’s conviction of Ajmal Beg and Jamila under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Ajmal was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve his sentence. Considering Jamila’s advanced age of 94 years, the Court upheld her conviction but decided not to send her to prison on humanitarian grounds.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ajmal Beg & Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 132–133 of 2017
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Dowry Death & Cruelty under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act)
Decision Date: 2025 (Supreme Court of India)