Dated: 20th April, 2023
Court : The Supreme Court of India
Bench : Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal
Facts of the case
In this case appellant and the deceased got married in the year 1993, the deceased was residing. On 24.6.1995 deceased father Pratap Singh filed a complaint with P.S Jaspur stating that his daughter was married to the appellant for two years and he given them the dowry as per his status. Two months after the marriage his daughter visited him and told him that her in-laws are asking for motorcycle as it was not given in dowry. He swayed his daughter that he do not enough money right now but he will give them whenever he will be in a position to do so and sent her back to her matrimonial home. Consequently whenever his daughter came to their parental house she used to ask him about motorcycle and after one year demand of land was also made. Every time he use to pacify his daughter and send her back to her marital house as he was not in the position to afford it. On 23.06.1995, Jagir Singh who lived in the Bhogpur village, where his daughter lived with her in-laws informed him that his daughter Chillo Kaur has been murdered by their in-laws. On getting the information complainant along with his wife came to Bhogpur village on 24.06.1995 where he gets to know that his daughter on 22.06.1995 in the morning at 8 am was strangled and beaten to death by her husband Charan Singh, mother-in-law Santo Kaur and brother-in-law Gurmeet Singh. They cremated the dead body without notifying them and she was killed on the account of non-fulfillment of demand of motorcycle and land in dowry. The charge sheet was filled and investigation started. The trial court, after evaluating evidence convicted Charan Singh (the appellant), Santo Kaur and Gurmeet Singh under section 304B, 498A and 201 of IPC, and sentenced them to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of ten years under section 304B, rigorous imprisonment of two years under section 498A and imprisonment of two years under section 201 IPC
The appellant filled appeal in High Court, the conviction of Santo Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur was set aside under section 304B, 498A, 201 IPC and they were acquitted. But appellant conviction was upheld but high court rewarded him by reducing his punishment from rigorous ten years under section 304B to seven years. Impugned by the judgement of High Court appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the wife’s unnatural death within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house will be enough to convict husband in dowry death?
- Whether appellant’s conviction under section 304B and 498 is legally sustained?
- Whether the evidence shows any sign of brutality and harassment before death?
Related legal provision
Section 304B of Indian Penal Code: Dowry Death- This section of The Indian Penal Code states that, where the death of the woman is caused by burn or any bodily injury or occurs otherwise under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative connected to her husband in connection with any demand of dowry, such detail shall be called “dowry death” and shall husband or any relative who caused her death.
Dowry death explained under section 2 of the Dowry Prohibiton Act states that whoever commits the dowry death will be sentenced with imprisonment not less than 7 years and the term may extend to life imprisonment also
498A of Indian Penal Code: Husband or relative of husband of the woman subjecting her to cruelty- This section states that whoever husband or relative of husband of the woman subjecting her to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable of fine.
For the purpose of this section cruelty means:
- A willful conduct which is of such a nature which drive woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb and health (whether mental or physical) of the woman or
- harassment of woman where the harassment is coercing her any person related to her for any unlawful demand of property or valuable security or is account of failure by her or any other person related to her to meet such demand
Section 113B in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Presumption as to dowry death- When the question arises whether person committed dowry death, soon before the death if woman has been subjected to any cruelty or harassment by such person or in connection with person, with any demand for dowry, the court shall presume such person had caused dowry death
Contention
Appellant’s Contention
- The counsel appearing for appellant presented his argument stating that conviction and sentenced of the appellant cannot legally sustained either under section 304B and 498A of IPC. The pre-requisites for stating that deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before the death, in any connection with dowry demand. The section 113B of The Evidence Act can also be raised only when it is shown that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in any connection with dowry
- The counsel further opposed that the marriage took place in 1993 and deceased died on 22nd June 1995. In those two years of marriage not a single person of the family member of deceased eithrer her father, maternal grandmother and maternal uncle filed any complaint concerning the cruelty or harassment on the deceased by their in-laws before the death of the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry. Even the maternal grandmother and maternal who live about one farlang distance from the village were present at the time of cremation, even after that they did not lodged any complaint to the police.
Respondent’s Contention
- The counsel appearing for respondents indicated that it is a case in which a young women was killed by their in-laws in lust of dowry. The marriage was merely two years old and the women death was unnatural. The deceased was cremated without informing her parents. The maternal grandmother and two uncles who were present at the time of cremation saw bruises on deceased’s hand and a broken tooth. They could not lodge any complaint because they were vulnerable. The death occurred in wedded house, hence compulsion lies on the appellant.
- The counsel further argumented that there is suitable materials on record in the form of testimonials of witnesses produced by the prosecution that there was frequent demand for dowry by the appellant. There is no error in the judgement of the High Court. Sufficient mercy has already been shown by the High Court by reducing the sentence of the appellant from ten years to seven years as provided under section 304B IPC.
Judgement
In the judgement of the Supreme Court Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal held that on the mutual appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the considered view of that the pre-requisites to raise presumption under section 304B IPC and section 113B of the Evidence Act have not been fulfilled which does not rationalize appellant’s conviction. Mere death of the women in matrimonial in unnatural way within seven years will not be sufficient to convict appellant under section 304B and 498A of IPC. In our opinion the cause of death as such is not known. Therefore conviction and the sentence of the appellant under section 304B, 498A and 201 IPC cannot be legally sustained
Rationale
- The Supreme Court observed that the cruelty and harassment has to be seen. In his statement Pratap Singh father of the deceased detailed that after two months of marriage his daughter came to his house stating that the appellant demanded for motorcycle, however she was sent back. Thereafter again his daughter visited him and again appraised for the same demand of the motorcycle was being forced by the appellant. Besides the demand of land was also made. There nothing in the statement which shows any sign in which it can be shown that the demand was made before the death of the deceased as the occurrences are referred are too quite long-standing.
- The Supreme Court further observed that the deceased maternal grandmother used to live about one mile from the deceased house. She used to visit deceased house and further she added that the deceased was being treated very badly and was not even allowed to go to her parental house. The deceased informed her that appellant used to ask her to bring motorcycle from maternal grandmother house. After the death of husband of maternal grandmother in 1995 appellant asked deceased to get land from her maternal grandmother. On the demand made to her she replied in negative. But in her cross-examination she stated that the land and motorcycle was not demanded from her and even in her there was nothing to suggest that before her death any kind of cruelty or harassment was made to the deceased either by appellant or his family members. All what is stated is regarding demand and there was no detail of cruelty or harassment.
- The Supreme Court further said the evidence led by prosecution, not any of the evidences shows any signs of cruelty or harassment on deceased by the appellant or any of the demand of the dowry soon before the death of the deceased. Rather harassment has not been recited by anyone, there were only oral averments of the land and motorcycle that was made much prior the death of the deceased. The above-mentioned evidence led by the prosecution does not fulfill the pre-requisite to invoke presumption under Section 304B and 113B The Evidence Act. Even the Section 498A cannot be invoked as there is no proof of cruelty or harassment before the death of deceased.
- The Supreme Court further detected that the defence had produced Gurmej Singh DW-1, who was the head of the village at the time of incident. He stated that the information about the death was given to the deceased and other family members. He listed that the possessions of the deceased was given to her maternal grandmother and uncle after cremation. His statement was confirmed by the maternal grandmother of the deceased and uncle. Meaning there was no misgiving regarding the death of the deceased.
Defects of law
In this case the death of the deceased after marriage have been as the death after dowry and the appellant would have been legally sustained under Section 304B and 113B for at least for ten years which defines dowry death in which it states the cruelty and harassment on the women by her husband or any relative of husband in connection with the demand of dowry soon before the death of marriage, but The Supreme Court judgement stated that appellant conviction and sentenced under Section 304B IPC and 113B The Evidence Act is not legal as there is no evidence of the cruelty or harassment on the deceased before the death, the court gave reference of the case Rajeev Kumar v. State Of Haryana in which the court explained that in the mentioned case bodily injuries were provided as the evidence and witnesses for the same were also present which led to the implementation of 304B IPC and 113B of The Evidence Act, but the appellant case does not present any evidence which can prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death, therefore the appellant should be set free.
Inference
I someway agree with the court’s decision regarding the case because the evidences and the statement given in the courts does not presents any sign of cruelty and harassment soon before the death, though her maternal grandmother stated certain statement but the statement was changed by her in the court which made court being apprehensive towards her. The parents also did not filed the complaint against the dowry demand in those two years of marriage and not even the single witness was presented who can approve that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her in-laws and appellant. Under the Sections 304B IPC, 498A, 113B of The Evidence Act court took the right decision on the foundation of all the evidences and the witnesses presented by the prosecution.
References
Woman’s unnatural death in matrimonial home, within 7 years of marriage, not sufficient to convict husband/in-laws for dowry death: Supreme Court. (17th July, 2024, 9:45 PM)
Unnatural Death Of Wife In Matrimonial Home Within Seven Years Of Marriage In Itself Not Sufficient To Convict Husband For Dowry Death: Supreme Court (17th July, 2024, 12:00 PM)
Charan Singh @Charanjith Singh V State of Uttarakhand (18th July, 2024, 8:45 PM) https://lawfoyer.in/charan-singh-charanjith-singh-v-state-of-uttarakhand/