Demand for Money from Wife for Business Purposes Not Automatically Considered Dowry: High Court
 |
| Demand for Money from Wife for Business Purposes Does Not Constitute Dowry: High Court Sets Aside Husband’s Conviction |
The High Court has set aside the conviction of a man accused of demanding dowry from his wife, observing that a demand for Tk. 100,000 for business purposes cannot be treated as dowry under the relevant legal definition. The court also found that inconsistencies between witness testimony and the medical certificate concerning the alleged physical assault created serious doubts about the prosecution’s case.
The decision was delivered on 3 August 2026 by a single bench of Justice Md. Salim in **Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2024, Md. Rashel Uddin v. The State and Another**. The High Court set aside the judgment of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No. 1, Cox’s Bazar, and acquitted the appellant. The judgment was published on the Supreme Court’s website on 11 October 2026.
Background of the Case:
According to the prosecution, Ismat Ara Begum married Md. Rashel Uddin on 23 February 2016. She alleged that her husband demanded dowry from her on several occasions after their marriage. On 4 August 2019, at around 6:00 pm, he allegedly demanded Tk. 100,000 for his business. When she refused to provide the money, he allegedly assaulted her with a wooden stick.
Following the complaint, the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No. 1, Cox’s Bazar, framed a charge against the accused under Section 11(ga) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, while the defence did not call any witnesses.
On 15 November 2023, the Tribunal convicted the accused and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Tk. 20,000, with an additional four months of simple imprisonment in default of payment. The accused subsequently challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court.
Business-Related Demand Does Not Fall Within the Definition of Dowry:
Upon examining the evidence, the High Court found that the complainant and several other witnesses referred to the demand for Tk. 100,000. However, their testimony indicated that the money had been sought for the appellant’s business purposes.
The court considered the statutory definition of dowry under the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, which concerns money, goods or property demanded by the bridegroom or persons directly related to him as a condition or consideration of marriage.
In the present case, the demand was described as being for business purposes. The court therefore concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish that the demand constituted dowry within the meaning of the law.
Inconsistencies Between Witness Testimony and Medical Evidence:
The High Court also scrutinised the evidence concerning the alleged physical assault.
In her testimony, the complainant stated that she had sustained an injury to her right shoulder. However, Dr. Mizanur Rahman, who examined her, testified that he found swelling on her left shoulder. The medical certificate likewise recorded a swelling injury on the left shoulder.
The court further noted inconsistencies among the witnesses regarding the location of the alleged injuries. These discrepancies between the complainant’s account, the doctor’s testimony and the medical certificate raised serious doubts about the allegation of physical assault and the prosecution’s overall case.
Tribunal Failed to Properly Assess the Evidence:
The High Court observed that the Tribunal had failed to properly evaluate the evidence before convicting the appellant. A criminal conviction must be supported by credible, reliable and convincing evidence. In this case, the evidence contained significant inconsistencies and deficiencies that undermined the finding of guilt.
The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge under Section 11(ga) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s decision could not be sustained.
Appeal Allowed, Conviction and Sentence Set Aside:
In view of these findings, the High Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2024. It set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No. 1, Cox’s Bazar, on 15 November 2023, acquitted the appellant of the charge and ordered the discharge of his bail bonds.
Legal Significance:
The judgment underscores that a demand for money cannot automatically be characterised as dowry merely because it is made by a husband to his wife. The nature and purpose of the demand must be assessed against the statutory definition of dowry.
The decision also highlights the importance of consistency between oral testimony and medical evidence in criminal proceedings. Material discrepancies may create reasonable doubt and undermine the prosecution’s ability to establish guilt.
BDLawPost/Masum
