Baboo Khan v. The State of Rajasthan, 2025

The appellant married the deceased in November 1986.

In May 1988, the couple had a male child and conducted a customary ceremony called ‘Chhoochhak’.

On 24.11.1988, the deceased and the child were found dead in a well.

FIR was lodged alleging harassment and torture over demands for gold ornaments (ring and chain) at the Chhoochhak ceremony.

Charges were filed under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant for 7 years under 304B and 1 year under 498A (concurrent). Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court observed that Section 304B IPC applies only to demands in connection with marriage, not for ceremonies after the birth of a child.

The court relied on Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) 8 SCC 633, clarifying that customary payments at ceremonies like childbirth are not within the scope of dowry.

The demand for gold at the Chhoochhak ceremony cannot be treated as a dowry demand.

Conviction under Section 304B IPC was set aside.

Conviction under Section 498A IPC was upheld.

No additional sentence was imposed since the appellant had already served 5 months longer than the 1-year sentence under Section 498A IPC.

The Court clarified the scope of Section 304B IPC: dowry refers only to property or valuable security demanded in connection with the marriage.

Post-marriage customary payments (e.g., for childbirth ceremonies) do not fall under dowry.

Reinforces that dowry laws cannot be extended beyond marriage-related demands.

Sets a precedent for distinguishing dowry demands from other customary payments in criminal cases.