Charan Singh V. State of Uttarakhand
Civil Appeal No. 447 of 2012/20 April 2023
In a recent decision, The Hon’ble Supreme Court decided that a husband cannot be found guilty of dowry death merely because his wife died involuntarily in their marital residence within seven years of their marriage.
“Mere death of the deceased being unnatural in the matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict the accused under Section 304B and 498A IPC.”
The court, led by Justice AS Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, overturned the appellant’s conviction and sentences for dowry death (Section 304B), cruelty towards a woman (Section 498A), and tampering with evidence (Section 201) under the Indian Penal Code. Initially imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court, the appellant faced 10 years in prison for Section 304B, 2 years for Section 498A, and 2 years for Section 201. However, the High Court reduced the sentence for Section 304B to seven years.
Brief of the Case
The deceased and the appellant have resided in their marital residence since their 1993 marriage. The father of the deceased reported dowry death to the local police station in 1995, along with a thorough explanation of the dowry demands made by the appellant’s in-laws. The father further stated that his daughter was killed by beating and strangulation at the hands of her mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and husband (the appellant), and that they burned her body without telling him. Following an inquiry, a chargesheet was made against all three, and the Trial Court found them guilty in accordance with Sections 304B, 498A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in the appeal, the Uttarakhand High Court overturned the brother-in-law’s and mother-in-law’s conviction and punishment, clearing them of all charges. Under Section 304B, the appellant’s sentence was lowered from 10 to seven years.
Issue Raised
Whether the presumption can be raised against the appellant, relieving the prosecution from proving its case and putting the onus on the accused/appellant.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which raise the presumption of dowry death within seven years of marriage, are the grounds for the appellant’s conviction. Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC as well as Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act must be reviewed in order to fully understand the points made by the parties’ knowledgeable legal representatives.
The same are extracted herein below:
“304B. Dowry death .— (1) Where any burns or bodily injury causes the death of a woman or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death” and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty — Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means: (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
113B. Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)”.
Judgement Analysis
The court noted that the appellant’s convictions under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code automatically imply a presumption of dowry death within seven years of marriage. In examining Sections 304B, 498A of the IPC, Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, and relevant legal precedents on dowry death, the court found it necessary to assess whether this presumption could be applied to the appellant, thereby shifting the burden of proof onto him.
While the deceased’s parents were absent during the cremation, the court highlighted the presence of the maternal grandmother and two maternal uncles, who, despite being there, did not raise any concerns or report the matter to the police. Emphasizing that instances of cruelty and harassment leading to dowry death should occur shortly before the demise, the court pointed out that the father’s testimony did not provide any information about dowry demands being raised just before the death. Furthermore, the alleged instances of dowry demands mentioned by the father were relatively old.
Upon reviewing statements from prosecution witnesses, the court found no mention of cruelty or harassment of the deceased by the appellant or his family members related to dowry. The accusations were confined to earlier demands for a motorcycle and land, predating the death of the deceased.
The Court concluded –
“The aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution does not fulfil the pre-requisites to invoke presumption under Section 304B IPC or Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Even the ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made out for the same reason as there is no evidence of cruelty and harassment to the deceased soon before her death.”
Conclusion
In conclusion, the testimony provided by Pratap Singh (PW-1), the deceased’s father, along with other prosecution witnesses, fails to establish recent instances of cruelty or harassment by the appellant or his family members leading up to the death. The alleged demands for a motorcycle and land were reported to be relatively old, and there is no indication of such demands being made just prior to the incident. The witnesses, including the deceased’s maternal uncle and grandmother, did not provide details of mistreatment or harassment. The prosecution’s evidence does not meet the criteria outlined in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code or Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act to invoke presumption. Consequently, the requirements of Section 498A IPC are also not fulfilled due to the lack of proof of cruelty and harassment against the deceased. The Supreme Court, after a comprehensive evaluation, concludes that the appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained. The presumption under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was not established, and mere unnatural death within the matrimonial house is insufficient for condemnation under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the appeal is granted, the contested decision of the High Court is overturned, and the bail bonds remain invalid.