Devender Singh & Ors. vs The State of Uttarakhand

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

21 April 2022

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2018

Result

Partly allowed

Bench

N.V. Ramana, A.S. Bopanna, Hima Kohli

Citation

[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1037 : 2022 INSC 457

Headnote

Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304B, 498A & 120B –Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 113B – Dowry death – Presumption of dowry death – On facts, complaint against appellants-husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the victim-wife that the victim was repeatedly harassed for dowry and she died unnatural death within six months of the marriage – Victim went missing from her matrimonial home and her body was subsequently found in the river after 10 days – Conviction and sentence of the appellants u/s. 498A, 304B and 120B by the High Court – On appeal, held: s. 304B r/w s. 113B of the 1872 Act makes it clear that once the prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon after her death, a presumption shall be drawn against the said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated u/s. 304B – Said presumption can be rebutted by the accused on demonstrating during the trial that all the ingredients of s. 304B have not been satisfied – Phrase ‘soon before her death’ in s. 304B, ought to be interpreted to mean proximate and to be linked with but not to be understood to mean immediately prior to the death – On facts, basic ingredients of s. 304B that death being not normal and death occurring within 7 years of marriage established – Also established that deceased was residing at her matrimonial home and had gone missing in circumstances where all the ingredients of s. 304B stood satisfied – Testimonies of prosecution witnesses-close relatives of the victim corroborates the fact of the dowry demand and harassment and cruelty being caused to the victim-deceased – Furthermore, the testimony of doctor that death occurred due to the injuries received before falling into the river – Failure of appellants to rebut the presumption drawn against them u/s.113B, as regards offence u/s. 304B – However, it has been established the mother in-law and brother in-law of the deceased were residing in a different house, and the demand for dowry was essentially for the benefit of the husband only, and no specific evidence led to show conspiracy hatched by the appellants – Thus, the conviction of the mother inlaw and the brother in-law not justified and set aside – Order of conviction and sentence as regards the husband of the victim by the High Court, upheld.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIMA KOHLI, J. 1. The appellants have assailed the judgment dated 14th September, 2017, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Government Appeal No.57 of 2010, whereby the judgment dated 17th April, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag acquitting them from the charges under Section 498A, 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code1 has been reversed and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven year with a fine of 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) and in default, to undergo simple impri

View Subscription Plans →