FACTS
On July 1, 1994, the dead and accused appellant No. 1 tied the knot. Around 4:00 or 4:30 PM on July 31, 1995, the complainant received word from someone that his daughter was hospitalized due to a bad illness. After learning of this, the complainant hurried to the hospital with his wife and kid, where they knew that the dead had died from serious burn injuries.
The prosecution said that the dead had been cruelly harassed by the defendants because there was not enough dowry and that she had committed suicide by lighting herself on fire shortly after one year of marriage. Her corpse had 85% of its kerosene burned off, according to the evidence. Whether her in-laws had doused her with kerosene or whether she had self-immolated, were the two scenarios that were explored.
The deceased had often bemoaned to her brothers and parents the abuse she was subjected to at the hands of her in-laws, especially concerning their demands for a scooter as dowry. She went back to her married residence a month before she passed away, and it was said that harassment persisted there. On the other hand, the respondents asserted that her death was unintentional.
The ruling in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3SB of 1998 and 16SB of 1998, which the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandigarh rendered on November 6, 2008, is the subject of the present appeals. In that ruling, the High Court maintained the conviction and sentence that the Trial Court had issued on December 11, 1997, rejecting the appellants’ appeals.
The Trial Court found the appellants guilty of breaching Sections 304B and 306 of the IPC by a decision dated 11.12.1997.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Was the conviction of the accused on the charge framed under Section 304B, IPC justified by the trial court and High Court?
2. Was the conviction of the accused on the charge framed under Section 306, IPC justified with trial court and High Court?
CONTENTION
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants maintain that in this case, the probability of an accidental fire cannot be ruled out. Above all, the prosecution failed to prove that a dowry was called for. Finally, the prosecution failed to prove that the dowry demand, presuming it was made, was made close to the dead victim’s death.
Respondent‘s Arguments
The Respondent Country contended that the Appellate Parties had not shown evidence to support the Court’s involvement in lower court rulings about competition. The attorney emphasized that the victim’s purported death occurred a year following the couple’s marriage. Furthermore, other eyewitnesses have consistently brought up the same situations involving dowry charges.
JUDGEMENT
- The court is now able to consider the merits of the current case after adhering to Section 304-B, IPC. It is necessary to dispute the claims made by the appellants’ defense counsel.
- When determining the cause of death, the physician (P.W.3) noticed that the victim, who had 85% burns, had a kerosene odor on her body. As a result, burns are the cause of death in this instance. The first two components of the crime are satisfied since the burn-related death happens within seven years of the marriage.
- About the dowry issue, the evidence in the file indicates that the deceased disclosed to her brother (P.W.7) that she had been tortured by her husband and mother-in-law because she had not brought enough dowry when they paid her a visit at the matrimonial home on Raksha Bandhan, a month after they were married. The defendants also specifically requested a scooter. It is noteworthy that the dead went back to her marital residence just one month before her passing. The accused is still insistent on receiving a dowry for the deceased, though. When the deceased went to see her father, she told him the previously disclosed fact.
- The dead had undergone horrors just before her death because she had not brought enough dowry, according to the Trial Court and High Court, which deemed the testimonies to be credible. The Supreme Court entirely concurred with the lower courts’ judgments.
- Based on the research above, it is evident that the prosecution was successful in demonstrating that the dead person’s burn death occurred within a year after marriage. This is more evidence that she was harassed and mistreated for requesting a dowry not long before she passed away.
- To demonstrate that the death was unintentional or unrelated to the defendants, the defendants did not provide any evidence in the file.
- According to the doctor’s evidence, the deceased person’s whole body had been covered with kerosene oil. Consequently, the court rejects the likelihood of an accident. To prove the essential factor that the deceased committed suicide, the prosecution did not provide adequate evidence.
- The prosecution has not been able to establish that the death in this case was the consequence of suicide. Thus, the court feels that it ought to get involved in the lower court’s decision to find the appellants guilty under Section 306 of the IPC.
- This bench concludes that the High Court and Trial Court did not err in convicting the appellants under Section 304B of the IPC since they failed to meet the burden of proof as required by Section 113B of the Evidence Act. However after weighing the facts and circumstances, the court has decided that the offense under Section 306 of the IPC is not proven. Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and penalty under Section 306 of the IPC.
RATIONALE and ANALYSIS
FOR SECTION 304(b) of IPC
The court’s will to confront the pervasive societal issue of dowry murders and harassment is the rationale underlying its interpretation of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The word “soon before” in Section 304B IPC is inherently ambiguous, which might lead to absurd outcomes or undermine the legislative objective of averting tragedies associated with dowries. The court recommends, therefore, that the phrase “soon before” be interpreted broadly, allowing the courts to consider the specific facts and circumstances. Using this tactic, courts can uphold the law’s intention to protect women from abuse resulting from dowry demands.
Where it is shown that dowry demands caused abuse or harassment of a woman “soon before” her death, an important presumption is established under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The court must presume that the accused caused the dowry death until the accused can show evidence to the contrary. Consequently, the onus is now on the accused. The court stresses the importance of this rebuttable presumption, stating that it ensures that those responsible for dowry killings are held liable and affords the accused a reasonable opportunity to prove their case.
The court highlights the heightened responsibility placed on judges, defense attorneys, and prosecutors in cases containing Section 304B IPC. Procedures must be safeguarded in order to ensure that trials are conducted with the utmost care and objectivity. Because situations involving dowry deaths are so terrible, the judicial system needs to be both strict and equitable. According to Section 304B IPC’s legislative mandate, every unnatural death related to dowry demands—regardless of whether it resulted from burns, physical damage, or suspicious circumstances—must be classified as a “dowry death” if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision underscores the gravity with which dowry deaths are treated by the law, stating that the husband or his family “shall be deemed to have caused her death” until proven differently.
FOR SECTION 306 of IPC
A cursory reading of the clause suggests that to prove that a suicide has been committed, the prosecution must first prove that Section 306 of the IPC has been committed. Second, the prosecution needs to demonstrate that the individual who is being accused of aiding in the suicide had a direct hand in it. About the latter criterion, Section 113A of the Evidence Act establishes, under specific circumstances, a presumption against the husband and/or his relative about their involvement in the suicide of a married lady.
Both the Trial Court and the High Court have determined that the deceased in this instance committed suicide. Nonetheless, we believe that the judgment drawn by the lower courts is predicated on conjecture. No documentation exists to substantiate the same. The Trial Court derived its reasoning in this regard as follows: “Furthermore, the prosecution has not presented any direct evidence that any of the accused caused death by sprinkling kerosene on the deceased’s body. The only possibility is that Meena Kumari ended her life by sprinkling kerosene on her body.” Because the facts were not sufficiently supported by the available evidence. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the death occurred due to suicide. Therefore, we believe that the finding of the Courts below convicting the appellants under Section 306, IPC merits interference by this Court.
DEFECTS OF LAW
- The phrase “soon before” as appearing in Section 304B, IPC cannot be construed to mean ‘immediately before’. The prosecution must establish the existence of a “proximate and live link” between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.
- Due to the precarious nature of Section 304B, IPC read with 113B, Evidence Act, Judges, prosecution and defense should be careful during the conduction of trial.
- It is a matter of grave concern that, often, Trial Courts record the statement under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it is based on the fundamental principle of fairness. This aforesaid provision incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice “Audi alteram partem” as it enables the accused to explain the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution.
- The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. A duty is also cast on the counsel of the accused to prepare his defense since the inception of the Trial with due caution
- In the same breath, Trial Courts need to balance other important considerations such as the right to a speedy trial. In this regard, we may caution that the above provisions should not be allowed to be misused as delay tactics.
CONCLUSION
The honourable Supreme Court in the judgment of this case has taken into consideration the social evil of dowry which has led to the killing of many married women and has been responsible for destroying the lives of not only the victims but also all the persons associated with the victim. All the facts and judgments of the trial court and high court have been taken into consideration. The bench noted that it was not essentially suicide as the victim was fully dipped in kerosene. This case precedes the upcoming future cases under similar conditions and circumstances.
Dowry entirely should be eliminated from our society in any form. Our legal system would be called a huge failure if such discriminatory and backward practices are still practiced in our society too openly with high acceptance. The victim as well as the whole family is left traumatized due to the torture faced by them. The parents of the victims should be held equally responsible for the guilt of the in-laws if they decide to maintain silence on the whole incident and let their daughters suffer. spreading awareness in society is essential to curb this. We need stricter laws with rational execution of those laws to stop this practice as a whole.
SUBMITTED BY: –
Suhani Khandelwal
Institute Of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad