Penal Code, 1860: s.304B r/w s.34 – Dowry death – Appellants-accused were father and son – Victim deceased was wife of accused no.1 – Case against the appellants was that the deceased was treated with cruelty on account of dowry demand – The victimdeceased committed suicide by burning – Trial court held that prosecution failed to prove case against both the appellants-accused and ordered acquittal – Before High Court, appellants produced letters to show that there was no cruelty, however, High Court held that actual letters written by the deceased showing cruelty could not be produced as they were misplaced due to shifting of the house – High Court accepted the deposition given by prosecution witnesses as reliable and trustworthy and convicted the appellants under s.304B r/w s.34 – On appeal, held: The evidence of the mother of the deceased did not reflect that deceased ever complained about accused having harassed or beaten on account of dowry – Also, there were serious contradictions in the evidence of the father of the deceased – The two letters alleged to have been written by deceased were not produced by the prosecution on the plea that they were misplaced during shifting of the house – Even, if it is accepted that those letters were misplaced, the letters admittedly sent by the father of the deceased to his deceased daughter within few days of the receipt of the letters did not disclose anything about the harassment or cruelty or dowry demand – Even, in the letter written by father of the deceased to his son, there was no mention about any harassment or cruelty on account of dowry demand – High Court, however, still took the view that dowry related harassment was mentioned in the letters sent by the deceased which were not even produced – This approach, particularly, in an appeal against acquittal was clearly unacceptable – Case under s.304B, thus, not made out – Conviction set aside.
Penal Code, 1860: s.304B – Scope of trial under – Appellants-accused were father and son – Victim deceased was wife of accused no.1 – Allegation that accused-father wanted to fulfil his lust with his daughter-in-law and as she did not agree he used to torture her and give her beating – The victim-deceased committed suicide by burning – High Court convicted the appellants under s.304B r/w s.34, however found that offence under s.306 was not made out – On appeal, held: The case of abetting suicide under s.306 r/w s.34 was found unacceptable both by the trial court and High Court and appellants were acquitted of said offence – A perusal of the impugned judgment showed that accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses, the High Court was persuaded to hold inter alia that the second accused also harassed her by asking her to provide liquor in the glass, and after taking liquor, in the state of intoxication, he used to ask her to sleep with him and on her refusal, subjected her to mental cruelty – High Court was in clear error in taking into consideration the evidence relating to harassment by the second accused on the basis that he, in the state of intoxication, asked her to sleep with him, and on that basis, she was subjected to mental cruelty – The said evidence is totally irrelevant and foreign to the scope of a trial for the offence under s.304B – It did not relate, at all, to the demand for dowry – High Court overstepped its limits in dealing with an appeal against acquittal – The view taken by the trial court was a possible one and did not merit interference by the Appellate Court – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113B.
Appeal: Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference – Discussed.
Criminal trial: Evidence – Chief examination and crossexamination of witnesses – Held: Truth in a criminal trial is discovered by not merely going through the cross-examination of the witnesses – There must be an analysis of the chief-examination of the witnesses in conjunction with the cross-examination and the re-examination, if any – The effect of what other witnesses have deposed must also enter into consideration of the matter – Evidence.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 304B is applicable if within 7 years of the marriage, death of a woman (the wife) takes place. The death must be caused by any burns or bodily injury or the death occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. It must be established that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The cruelty or harassment may be by her husband or any relative of her husband. The cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Section 304B treats this as a dowry death. Therefore, in such circumstances, it further provides that husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Section 113B of Evidence Act, 1872 provides for presumption as to dowry death. It is no doubt a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the husband and his relatives to show the absence of the elements of Section 304B. [Paras 33, 34] [688-B-H]
1.2 The testimony of PW-1-sister of the deceased was to the effect that the deceased was influenced by spirit (devta) and the religious ceremony/prayers were held. The deceased became normal after doing it. Still further, there was evidence that whatever madness the deceased used to do, it was taken care of by her in-law’s house. PW4-father of the deceased completely contradicted himself, when in cross-examination, he stated that 5-6 days after marriage, when the first accused and the deceased came, he was on duty. PW2/wife of PW4, deposed that her husband was working in Bombay. Earlier in cross-examination, PW4 deposed that when he was going back after 5-6 days of marriage, the first accused came to take the deceased and then the first accused said that television and VCR was not given. PW4 further stated that on this, the first accused said that deceased was having flat nose. Thereafter, he stated that he went back to Bombay on his duty. This aspect was not considered at all by the High Court. This contradiction in evidence goes to the root of the matter. This proved that the prosecution case sought to be proved through PW4, was unacceptable. PW2 (wife of PW4) stated that the deceased was an illiterate. She did not know how to read and write. On the other hand, PW4 deposed that the deceased could read and write letters. [Paras 36, 37, 38 and 39] [689-C, E-H; 690-A]
1.3 The two letters written by the deceased were not produced by the prosecution. The reason for non-production was that they were misplaced during shifting of the house. Even, accepting that those letters were misplaced, the question whether they contained allegation of harassment due to dowry, should have been resolved with reference to the letters admittedly sent by PW4 to the deceased within a few days of the receipt of the letters. Even, in the letter written by PW4 to his son, there is no mention about any harassment or cruelty on account of dowry demand. He only says to ask the deceased not to worry and not to send her even if anybody comes to call her. The High Court, however, still took the view that dowry related harassment was mentioned in letters sent by the deceased which are not even produced. This approach, particularly, in an appeal against acquittal is clearly unacceptable and cannot be approved. PW2-mother of the deceased, gave her statement that deceased never complained about accused regarding harassment or beatings or fact of giving less dowry. [Paras 42, 43, 46] [690-E-H; 691-A-B, E]
2. In an appeal from acquittal, the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in the appreciation of evidence as well as its approach to how the reliability of the witness is to be evaluated. A right of appeal is the creature of statute. Unless appellate power is expressly limited by additional conditionalities, the Appellate Court has power or rather is duty bound in the case of an appeal by the accused to reappraise the evidence. Even in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has power of reappraisal of evidence though subject to the limitation that interference would be in a case where the Trial Court’s verdict is against the weight of evidence which is the same thing as a perverse verdict. In this case, the High Court referred to the contents of the chief examination of the witnesses. Thereafter, it was stated that the witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing came out in evidence which created any doubt in his evidence. The witnesses were declared as being found reliable and believable. [Paras 47, 48 and 49] [691-F-H; 692-A-B]
3. Truth in a criminal trial is discovered by not merely going through the cross-examination of the witnesses. There must be an analysis of the chief examination of the witnesses in conjunction with the cross examination and the re-examination, if any. The effect of what other witnesses have deposed must also enter into consideration of the matter. On the one hand, the laudable object underlying Section 304B of the IPC is not to be lost sight of. On the other hand, the Appellate Court must not be oblivious to the fact that it is duty bound to find whether an offence is committed or not and such a pursuit also would embrace the duty of the court to apply its mind to the evidence as a whole and arrive at conclusions as to facts and inferences therefrom as well. After all, at stake for the accused are, priceless rights to liberty, reputation and the right to life, not only of himself but also his family members. The Law Giver, has contemplated that the High Court will be the final arbiter of facts and even of law. The jurisdiction of the Apex Court was deliberately limited to the extra ordinary powers it enjoys under Article 136 of the Constitution of India unless it be exercised under other provisions. The cause of justice and the interest of litigants would be better subserved if the Appellate Court takes a closer look, in particular of the cross-examination of the witnesses and analyse the same. [Para 50] [692-C-F]
4. It is true that the deceased died within seven years of marriage. Her death was due to burning and she committed suicide. It is not a case where the accused stood charged under any provision except Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case of abetting suicide under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC was found unacceptable both by the Trial court and the High Court and the appellants stood acquitted. The High Court was in clear error in taking into consideration the evidence relating to harassment by the second accused on the basis that he, in the state of intoxication, asked her to sleep with him, and on that basis, she was subjected to mental cruelty. The said evidence is totally irrelevant and foreign to the scope of a trial for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC. It does not relate, at all, to the demand for dowry. [Paras 51-53] [692-G-H; 693-A, D] Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa (2015) 11 SCC
124 : [2015] 5 SCR 214 ; Dilawar Singh and others v. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 737 : [2014] 7 SCR
844 ; Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh Through Secretary AIR 2010 SC
589 : [2009] 14 SCR 1 ; K. Prakashan v. P.K.
Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 : [2007] 10 SCR 1010 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.