CASE DETAILS
| Judgement Cause Title | Charan Singh @Charanjith Singh V. State of Uttarakhand |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal no 447 of 2012 |
| Judgement Date | 20th April 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Quorum | Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal |
| Author | Rajesh Bindal |
| Legal Provisions Involved | Section 304B,498A, 201 of IPC Section 113A of IEA |
INTRODUCTION
In India, there are many cases relating to dowry death. If a woman dies within 7 years of the commencement of marriage there can be sufficient cause that the death happened due to dowry death. The appellant, Charan Singh also as known as Charanjit Singh has filed a petition stimulating his verdict and sentence below sections 304B,498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The dispute case of Criminal Appeal no.447 of 2012. The appellant, the deceased spouse challenged the trial court verdict and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous labour below section 304B, two years below section 498A and 2 years below section 201 of IPC.
The marriage of the appellants and the Chhilo Kaur which happened in 1993 is at the centre of this case. There have been claims that the appellants and his family members tormented the deceased and made demands for the dowry.
The trial court found the appellant and the other two accused parties guilty after the trial. However, the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law’s conviction and punishment were quashed upon appeal to the Supreme Court, culminating in their acquittal. On the other hand, below section 304B of IPC, the High Court sustained the appellants’ conviction but decreased his sentence from ten years to seven years.
Below sections 304B or 498A IPC, the defence argues that the evidence used in the trial did not support the appellants’ guilt. They assert that there is insufficient proof of brutality or harassment toward the deceased related to dowry demands soon before the death.
Essentials of Dowry Death
- The woman must be imperilled to brutality or agitation by her husband or relatives.
- Within 7 years of marriage, the death must occur.
- The demise of the woman must be by blisters or by any bodily injury otherwise other than normal circumstances.
- Such brutality must be met soon before the death of the woman.
Section 498A of IPC –Brutality by husband or relatives
The woman must be exposed to any brutality by their husband or by her relatives and may be punished for 3 years and also liable for a fine.
FACTS
The appellant and deceased Chhilo Kaur got married in the year 1993. The deceased was residing in her matrimonial home. On 24.6.1995 at 6.15 p.m. father of the deceased, Pratap Singh (PW-1) filed complaint with the P.S. Jaspur stating that his daughter Chhilo Kaur was married to the appellant about two years ago. In the marriage, he had given sufficient dowry as per his status. Two months after the marriage, his daughter came to her parental home and told the complainant (PW-1) that her in-laws are asking her to bring a motorcycle as the same was not given in dowry. The complainant pacified his daughter stating that at present he is not capable of giving motorcycle, however, whenever he is in a position to do so, he will certainly give and sent his daughter back to her matrimonial home.
Thereafter, whenever his daughter came to the parental home, she used to talk about the demand of motorcycle and subsequently after about one year of marriage, the demand for land was also made. On the previous day i.e. on 23.6.1995, one Jagir Singh of village Bhogpur Dam, where his daughter lived came to complainant and told him that his daughter, Chhilo Kaur has been murdered by her in-laws. On getting the information, the complainant along with his wife came to village Bhogpur Dam on 24.6.1995 and were shocked to know that on 22.6.1995 in the morning at about 8.00 a.m., his daughter was beaten up and strangulated to death by her husband Charan Singh, brother-in-law, Gurmeet Singh and mother-in-law Santo Kaur. They had cremated the dead body without even informing the complainant. She was killed on account of non-fulfilment of demand of motorbike and land in dowry. The matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed against Charan Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Santo Kaur.
ISSUES
Whether the presumption can be raised against the appellant relieving the prosecution from proving its case and putting the onus on the accused/appellant.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
Due to the absence of the attorney who filed the appeal, learned counsel was asked to serve as an amicus curiae and made the argument that the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be upheld lawfully under either Sections 304B or 498A IPC. The deceased required to have experienced cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry shortly before death in order to raise the presumption under Section 304B IPC. According to Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the dowry death presumption can only be increased if it can be proven that the lady was cruelly treated or harassed because of or in connection with the demand for dowry shortly before she passed away.
However, the appellant’s ten-year term of hard imprisonment under Section 304B IPC was reduced to seven years. The High Court’s aforementioned decision is the one that is being contested in this appeal. On the other hand, knowledgeable counsel for the State argued that the case involved the murder of a young woman by her in-laws out of dowry lust. The death was unnatural, and the marriage had only been together for two years. The dead weren’t even allowed to tell her parents before being cremated. The broken tooth and injury marks on the deceased’s body were visible to the maternal grandmother and the two uncles who were present during the cremation. They were threatened, so they were unable to file the complaint. The onus is squarely on the appellant to overturn the assumption because the death happened in the marital residence. There is enough evidence in the form of witness testimony provided by the prosecution to prove that the appellant repeatedly demanded dowry. The decision of the High Court is error-free. The High Court already demonstrated enough leniency when it reduced the appellant’s sentence from 10 years to a minimum of seven years as required by section 304B of the IPC.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
Jagir Singh, a crucial witness mentioned by the complainant in the FIR, was also alleged to have been absent from the prosecution’s case. He is the individual who the complaint claims is a local of the village of Bhogpur Dam, where the dead used to reside in her matrimonial home. He had told the complainant that his daughter had passed away. Why did the prosecution withhold this crucial witness? According to the I.O. Babban Singh, who testified as PW-6, Jagir Singh’s statement was recorded throughout the investigation. No presumption of dowry death can be raised once the requirements of Sections 304B, 498A IPC, and Section 113B of IEA have not been met. The claims against the appellant, his brother, and mother were further said to be identical. However, the State has not filed an appeal against the conviction of his mother and brother, and the appellant’s wife’s death was not an unexpected event given that she was having fits at the time.
JUDGEMENT
In the case of Baijnath (supra), the interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC was under discussion. It was believed that the common element of both offenses was the cruelty or harassment of the woman by her husband or a member of his family in exchange for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry.
Both the defense and the prosecution cross-examined witnesses.The Trial Court found Charan Singh (appellant), Gurmeet Singh, and Santo Kaur guilty under Sections 304B, 498A, and 201 IPC. It sentenced them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B IPC, two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A IPC, and two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC.
In an appeal brought by the defendants before the High Court, the appellant’s conviction was upheld. Still, Gurmeet Singh’s (the appellant’s brother-in-law) and Santo Kaur’s (the appellant’s mother-in-law) conviction and punishment under Sections 304B, 498A, and 201 IPC were overturned. However, the appellant’s ten-year term of hard imprisonment under Section 304B IPC was reduced to seven years. The High Court’s aforementioned decision is the one that is being contested in this appeal.
No case for conviction under Sections 304B or 498A of the IPC can be brought out based on the prosecution’s evidence, as none of the witnesses have indicated that the deceased was subjected to any harassment, cruelty, or dowry demand just moments before she passed away.. None of the dead’s relatives have spoken out about the dowry-related harassment the deceased experienced right before her passing. Additionally, it was claimed that notice was also sent to the deceased’s father, who in reality lived nearly 290 kilometers away. However, because of the need to wait for the deceased’s father to arrive, the cremation could not be postponed. In the case of Baijnath (supra), the interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC was under discussion
The definition of “dowry” as stated in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 is mandated. According to the explanation, the term “cruelty” encompasses both the actions of the tormentor and the effects on the woman who is being subjected to them. However, the core of the two offenses, to underline, is cruelty or harassment committed by the spouse or any of his relatives in response to or in connection with any dowry demand. The aforementioned ruling examined a joint reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with reference to the presumption established. The deceased’s passing occurred on 22.6.1995. The same day, she was cremated. The appellant claimed that the deceased’s parents, who lived around 290 kilometers distant, were informed. They were unable to arrive in time, though. Additionally, it was said that the deceased’s maternal grandmother and two maternal uncles, who were residing about a furlong away from her marital home when she passed away, were present when she was cremated. They didn’t bring up any problems and kept the cops in the dark.
CONCLUSION
Charan Singh and Chilo Kaur were spouses. Chhilo Kaur has been subjected to brutality in her in-law’s home for dowry by her husband and in-laws. Suddenly one day Chhilo Kaur passed away. So the parents of Chhilo Kaur filed a complaint against Charan Singh below section 304B,498A,201 of IPC. The prosecution side argued that the woman passed away only because of the dowry torture. The trial court, the defence side argued that there were no proper witnesses to prove the brutality and gave sentences of “two years below section 498A,2 years below section 201 and 10 years of hard imprisonment below section 304B of IPC”[6].But on the appeal on High Court maintained Charan Singh’s sentence from 10 years to 7 years below section 304B. On the challenging of this judgement, they went for an appeal to the Supreme Court as there were no sufficient reasons to make Charan Singh liable below sections 304B,498A and 201 of IPC. Thus Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s verdict.
References
SCC Online
Indian Penal Code,1860
Indian Evidence act, 1872
Baijnath V. State of M.P.
BY:-
JIYA GUPTA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY