HEERA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that 'Muklava' in the case in hand has taken place before five years of the occurrence. The date of Muklava should be taken as the date of marriage. It is a case of burning of daughter-in-law within five years of Muklava, therefore, purposive interpretation of the word 'marriage' should be taken as occurring under Sec. 113-A of the Evidence Act and Sec. 304-B IPC. The concept, purpose and idea behind this enactment is to punish the offence of mental cruelty and physical violence against married woman which may be caused after the husband-wife relationship are put to real test i.e., starting of married life. In Indian social to context where child marriages are rempant, the actual relationship of marriage comes into being only when Muklava ceremony takes place and hence word marriage' must receive the purposive interpretation to extend its meaning to Muklava. This word has to be interpreted with imagination of purpose behind it because a statute is best interpreted when one knows why it has been enacted'. The living thought is, for the unnatural death of wives and brides, within seven years of marriage i.e. starting of married life, the husband and the in laws are accountable and if not explained and proved otherwise they are criminally liable.

(2.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents urged that strict interpretation is required to be given to the word 'marriage' and in Penal Statutes, the theory of purposive interpretation cannot be invoked.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.