Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Death of married woman after she consumed poison in her matrimonial home – Conviction of appellant-husband by Courts below – Challenge to – Held: On facts, not acceptable – Death was caused within seven years of marriage in “otherwise than under normal circumstances” – Consistent and confidence inspiring testimony of deceased’s father (PW4) about continuing harassment meted out to deceased on account of dowry – Prosecution having satisfied the necessary ingredients u/s.304B IPC, the presumption u/s.113-B, Evidence Act took full effect, which was not rebutted by the appellant – Courts below did not err in convicting appellant u/s.304-B, IPC as appellant failed to discharge the burden u.s.113-B, Evidence Act – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113B. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304B and 498A – Plea that conviction u/s.304B cannot be sustained without any charges u/s. 498A – Held: Is not tenable – Offences u/s.498A and s.304B, IPC are distinct in nature – Although cruelty is a common thread existing in both the offences, however the ingredients of each offence are distinct and must be proved separately by the prosecution – If a case is made out, there can be a conviction under both the sections. Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Conviction under – Necessary ingredients –Ingredient as to existence of dowry demand “soon before her death” – Interpretation of – Held: The expression “soon before” cannot be interpreted to mean “immediately before”, rather the prosecution has to show that there existed a “proximate and live link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim – Words and Phrases – Expressions “soon before”, “immediately before” and “proximate and live link”.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Guidelines issued by Supreme Court in Satbir Singh case relating to trial u/s.304B – Re-iterated. Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113B – Presumption of causation – Held: Once the necessary ingredients u/s.304-B, IPC stand satisfied, a presumption of causation arises against the accused u/s.113-B, Evidence Act and the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption – Penal Code, 1860 – s.304B.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. Section 304-B(1), IPC defines ‘dowry death’ of a woman. It provides that ‘dowry death’ is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal 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 of her husband, in connection with demand for dowry. Further, Section 304-B(2), IPC provides punishment for the aforesaid offence. [Para 9][159-D-F]
1.2. In the present case, admittedly, the marriage between the deceased and the accused-appellant took place on 23.11.2004, and the death of the deceased occurred in 2008 after she consumed poison in her matrimonial home. Therefore, the first two ingredients as to death under otherwise than ‘normal circumstances’ within seven years of marriage stand satisfied. [Para 10][160-C-D]
1.3. The next important ingredient which needs to be established is the existence of dowry demand “soon before her death”. This court in catena of judgments have held that, “soon before” cannot be interpreted to mean “immediately before”, rather the prosecution has to show that there existed a “proximate and live link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim. [Para 11][160-D-E]
1.4. PW4 (Complainant), the father of the deceased, has clearly stated that after the marriage the deceased had telephonically informed him about the consistent demand of a car or equivalent cash by the accused. In 2007, when the complainant visited India, the deceased had also expressed her unhappiness due to constant harassment. Moreover, when he returned to the country in July, 2008, the deceased had reiterated the factum of demands before him. The complainant also stated as to how the families attempted to mediate the dispute themselves and on multiple occasions he gave certain gifts to the appellant and his family to ameliorate the situation. Another important circumstance is that the mother of the deceased had informed the father 15-20 days prior to the incident about the continuing harassment of the deceased on account of dowry. [Para 12][160-F-H]
1.5. Both the Trial Court and the High Court found the evidence of P.W.4 to be reliable and consistent despite a thorough cross-examination. No evidence was produced by the appellant to disregard the aforesaid testimony. The testimony of PW4 is found to be consistent and inspiring confidence by this Court as well. Taking into account the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of PW4, it is clear that the prosecution has proved the necessary ingredients under s.304-B, IPC against the accusedappellant. [Para 13][161-A-C]
2. Now, that necessary ingredients under s.304-B, IPC stands satisfied, a presumption of causation arises against the accused under s.113-B, Evidence Act and the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption. [Para 14][161-C-D]
3. The defence of the accused that his family and family of the deceased shared a cordial relationship, and in fact, the appellant had helped the mother of deceased in getting treatment of cancer, merits rejection as being untenable. The Trial Court concluded that the accused-appellant, who was working as a technician in a hospital, has forged the hospital records to prove the existence of cordial relationship between the families of the deceased and the accused. The conclusion reached by the Trial Court is based on a detailed analysis of the evidence on record, and does not warrant any interference. The appellant has not brought to attention any material to suggest that the above finding of the Trial Court was perverse or without any basis. [Paras 15, 16][161-D-E, 162-D]
4. The next submission of the appellant was that the deceased was suffering from depression owing to the health of her mother. However, no evidence has been produced on record by the appellant to indicate that the deceased was depressed due to the alleged poor health condition of her mother. In fact, no evidence was produced to even show that her mother’s health was deteriorating. [Para 17][162-E-F]
5. The prosecution having satisfied the necessary ingredients under Section 304B of IPC, the presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act takes full effect in this particular case, which has not been rebutted by the accused-appellant. The appellant has failed to make out a case for interference with the concurrent opinions of the Courts below, convicting the accusedappellant under Section 304-B, IPC. [Para 18][162-F-G]
6. The plea that without any charges under s. 498A, IPC a conviction under s. 304-B, IPC cannot be sustained, is not tenable, as the offences under s. 498-A and s. 304-B, IPC are distinct in nature. Although cruelty is a common thread existing in both the offences, however the ingredients of each offence are distinct and must be proved separately by the prosecution. If a case is made out, there can be a conviction under both the sections. [Paras 19, 20][162-G-H; 163-D-E]
7. After perusing the relevant material and the evidence available, it is found that the High Court and trial court have not committed any error in convicting the appellant under s. 304-B, IPC as the appellant failed to discharge the burden under s. 113B, Evidence Act. [Para 22][164-H; 165-A]
Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana 2021 AIR 2627; Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar [2005] 1 SCR 903; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, [2000] 3 SCR 662; Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, [2015] 2 SCR 835 – 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.