“Dowry” ought to be ascribed an expansive meaning so as to encompass any demand made on a woman, whether in respect of a property or a valuable security of any nature. Demand for money raised by the accused on the deceased for construction of a house, held, falls within the definition of the word ”Dowry” even the fact that the deceased wife joined the accused in asking her mother to contribute money to construct a house, held not material particularly when she made such a request for money under pressure. Hence, acquittal by High Court under S. 304-B set aside and accused held liable under Ss. 304-b and 498A. Interpretation of a provision of law that will defeat the very intention of the legislature must be shunned in favour of an interpretation that will promote the object sought to be achieved through the legislation meant to uproot a social evil like dowry demand.
[State of M.P. v. Jogendra, (2022) 5 SCC 401]