Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Date of the Case: May 28, 2021
Appeal Nos.: 17351736 of 2010
Appellant: Satbir Singh and Another
Respondent: State of Haryana
Bench/ Judge: N.V. Ramana (CJI), Aniruddha Bose, Surya Kant
Facts of the Cases
- The present appeal is based on the judgment passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellants have filed an appeal through a special leave petition in the Apex Court of India under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the judgments of the courts below.
- In the present case, the plaintiff in error, and the dead womantied the knot on 01.07.1994. On 31.07.1995, almost one year after marriage, somebody informed the complainant about the critical condition of the daughter and was admitted to the hospital, at about 4 – 4:30 PM. He(the complainant) immediately reached the hospital along with his wife and son and found that his daughter had passed away due to burn injuries. Her body was almost damaged and 15% of her body was there for identification. Traces of kerosene were also found on the body after the autopsy and investigation[1].
- The appellants were found guilty of violating Sections 304B and 306 by the Trial Court of the IPC in an order dated 11.12.1997, and under Section 304B of the IPC, they were given a seven-year sentence of solitary confinement with close monitoring for the offense& five years for violation under Section 306 of the IPC[2].
- The appellant petitioned the High Court to set aside the Trial Court’s decisionbut the High Court on 06.11.2008 sustained the judgment passed by the Lower Court and rejected the appeal filed by the aggrieved party.
Issues Raised
- Whether the Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court and Trial Court justified in convicting accused under theIndian Penal Code’s charge of Dowry Death u/s 304?
- Whether the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Trial Court justified in convicting the accused under theIndian Penal Code’s charge of Abetment to Suicide u/s 306?
Contention on behalf of Appellant
The appellant’s learned senior attorney argued that the probability of accidental fire in the maternal’s house cannot be ruled out in this case as it could be a suicide. The first contention is about the 304 B of IPC from the appellant’s side because the main ingredients of Dowry Death given under IPC are death by burn or bodily injury under normal conditions, seven years after gettingmarried, cruelty, & harassment by the bridegroom or his relatives for the demand of dowry and brutality or harassment or ill-treatment to the women soon before she passed away. In this case, the prosecution has not offered any proof to support the appellant’s dowry demand and secondly, the prosecution has not given any evidence to prove the connection of death with demand for dowry. Thirdly prosecution failed to prove death by accidental fire or suicide[3].
Contention on behalf of Respondent
The erudite council on behalf of the respondent contented appellant failed to produce any evidence about the strange death of the victim within one year of marriage by burning. Respondent has also provided the pieces of evidence and witnesses of demand for dowry in the meantime of marriage. Lastly, the appellant has failed to justify the interference of the apex court in the order passed by the Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court and Trial Court at Chandigarh[4].
The rationale behind the Judgment
The Punjab and Haryana High Court and Trial Court in Chandigarh filed charges against the defendant in this case under sections 304B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, which refer to Dowry Death and Aiding Suicide, respectively. The accused was not satisfied with the Judgment passed by lower courts and filed an appeal in the Apex Court of India.
The prosecution was unsuccessful in proving the fact of suicide unquestionably, hence the Apex Court overturned the accused’s sentenceu/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code but sustained the accused’s conviction u/s 304 B of the IPC. The demand fora petition for special leave to appealwas denied.
The Apex Court of India referred to precedents for giving the judgment. The court referred to the judgment of Major Singh v. The State of Punjab. In this case, the Apex Court overruled the judgment of the subordinate courts which was in favor of dowry death u/s 304B of IPC as it did not fulfill the key ingredients of Dowry Death which were mentioned under the Indian Penal Code. But here, essential ingredients of dowry death areproven. Hence, the Apex Court justified the judgment given by lower courts under section 304B of IPC.
The Apex Court also mentioned the judgment Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana emphasizing courts to presume a “death as a dowry death” if all key ingredients of dowry death are satisfied. It is mandatory to presume dowry death by the judge.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of exculpation u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code which talks about “abetment of suicide”. The key ingredientfor the abetment of suicide is the active participation of both parties. The prosecution has been unsuccessfulin offering any shreds of the legal exhibit to prove a connection between death and abetment to suicide also at the time of investigation doctors found traces of kerosene oil on the body of the deceased victim so it was not a mere accident and it was subject to intentional death. By this analysis court has set aside the judgment under section 306 of IPC passed by the lower courts.
Defects of Law
In this case, the ApexCourt and the lower Courts have pronounced the verdict u/s 304B of the IPC which is Dowry Death, and section 306 which is abetment to suicide under IPC. If the strict interpretation of the laws is done it can lead to total absurdity and failure of laws spirit and legislation in the country. As we have seen in the issue of dowry death, one of the ingredients is cruelty and harassment “soon before” the death and it cannot be interpreted exactly before death. There should be proper proof and shreds of evidence provided by the prosecution to show that it was a dowry death and also failed to connect the relation between cruelty and harassment by the husband and the death of the victim. The main lack of this law is defining the word death u/s 304B of the IPC. Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, does not use a broader classification of the system to determine if a death was homicidal, suicide, or accidental.This lack of categorization is because “other than under normal conditions” deaths might sometimes be brutal, suicidal, or accidental. Judges, the prosecution, and the defense shall use heedin every part of the trial because ofthe flimsy nature of Section 304B of the IPC in convergence with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). Section 304B should have a wider approach and not a narrower approach to the Pigeon Hole theory given by Salmond and Courts should be extra careful while interpreting the section 113B.
Inference
In the above case, according to the arguments and contention given by both parties, the Apex Court pronounced that the death of the deceased happened by burning of the body and due to cruelty by the husband or relatives of the husband provided u/s 498A of IPC.
But in the matter of conviction under section 306 of IPC, the prosecution failed to provide any piece of evidence that shows the “abetment to suicide”.
Therefore, the Apex court held the appellant convicted under the offense of 304B but in 306 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court also referred tothe previous judgment which was given in the judgment of Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana for the convictionu/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code, In this case,the prosecution successfully presented the evidence of abetment to suicide, and the Apex court has passed the order in favor of prosecution by carefully considered every aspect of the legislation and how it had been applied in previous cases.
Esha Jaiswal
Presidency University, Bangalore
[1]Indian Kanoon, Satbir Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 28 May 2021 (indiankanoon.org), (Last Visited September 19, 2023)
[2] Law Bhoomi,Case Brief: Satbir Singh v. The state of Haryana (lawbhoomi.com), (Last Visited September 19, 2023)
[3] SupremeCourtCases, Satbir v. The State of Haryana – Supreme Court Cases, (Last Visited September 19, 2023)
[4] SooLegal, Synopsis – SoOLEGAL, (Last Visited September 20, 2023)